GIFT   OF 
JUGK3GH 


THE 

DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE 

AN  INTERPRETATION 
AND   AN    ANALYSIS 


THE  DECLARATION 
OF  INDEPENDENCE 

AN  INTERPRETATION 
AND    AN    ANALYSIS 


HERBERT  FRIEDENWALD,  PH.D. 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY)! 


Neb)  ¥otfe 
THE   MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LTD. 
1904 


COPYRIGHT,  1904 
BY   HERBERT   FRIEDENWALD 


PRESS  OF 

THE  NEW  ERA  PRINTING  COMPANY 
LANCASTER,  PA. 


TO  MY  MOTHER 


PREFACE 

It  has  been  my  endeavor  to  show,  in  the  first  five 
chapters,  the  close  interrelation  between  the  develop 
ment  of  the  authority  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Con 
tinental  Congress  and  the  evolution  of  the  senti 
ment  for  independence.  The  gradual,  though  occa 
sionally  rapid  manner  in  which  the  Congress  ac 
quired  power,  and  the  ways  in  which  this  was  exer 
cised,  went  side  by  side  with  the  growth  of  the  idea 
that  independence  was  a  necessary  outcome  of  the 
controversy  between  England  and  America,  that  had 
been  raging  for  nearly  fifteen  years.  As  the  author 
ity  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Congress  were  extended,  it 
adopted  various  means  to  further  the  desire  for  in 
dependence.  Also,  as  this  desire  became  more  widely 
spread,  the  Congress,  the  embodiment  of  the  union 
sentiment,  acting  for  all  and  in  behalf  of  all,  gained 
additional  strength.  The  highest  point  of  its  power 
was  reached  on  July  4,  1776.  It  was  never  again 
so  powerful  as  on  the  day  it  declared  independence 
of  England.  The  decline  of  its  authority  dates  from 
this  time,  when  the  first  steps  were  taken  to  define 
the  limits  to  its  jurisdiction,  by  means  of  the  Articles 
of  Confederation.  The  states  then  began  to  acquire 
power  at  the  cost  of  the  Congress,  ultimately  culmi- 
vii 


Viii  PREFACE 

nating  in  its  complete  overthrow  and  the  establish 
ment  of  a  new  federal  government  under  the  Con 
stitution. 

In  order  to  describe  the  beginnings  of  the  Con 
gress  and  of  independence  it  has  not  been  thought 
necessary  to  go  over  again  the  oft-told,  though  as  yet 
inadequately  told  story  of  the  rise  of  the  American 
revolutionary  movement.  A  familiarity  with  the 
main  facts  of  that  history  is  assumed.  Only  such 
of  the  earlier  phases  of  the  controversy,  as  bear  im 
mediately  upon  independence,  have  been  touched 
upon  in  the  opening  chapter.  In  one  sense  Chalmers 
was  correct  in  dating  independence  from  the  first 
days  of  the  settlement  of  the  colonies.  In  another, 
the  events  preceding  the  Congress  of  1774,  are  to  be 
differentiated  from  those  happening  after  that  date, 
when  ideas  of  establishing  independence  first  had 
their  rise.  There  is  no  evidence  of  a  conscious  striv 
ing  for  independence  in  the  earlier  period;  there  is 
none  even  previous  to  November,  1775,  but  after 
that  date  it  appears  on  every  hand  with  a  force  that 
rendered  the  final  outcome  inevitable. 

In  the  explanation  of  -the  meaning  of  the  various 
clauses  of  the  Declaration,  embodied  in  chapters  X 
and  XI,  I  have  not  attempted  to  deal  with  every  ex 
ample  of  a  colonial  grievance  that  might  with  pro 
priety  be  assumed  to  have  been  held  in  mind  by  the 
framers  of  that  document.  Only  the  grievances  of 


PREFACE  IX 

particular  significance,  and  those  that  had  attained 
greatest  prominence  are  referred  to.  The  limit 
(1763)  fixed  by  the  Congress  of  1774  as  the  starting 
point  of  the  controversy,  has  been  adhered  to  in  the 
main ;  not,  however,  because  it  is  any  part  of  my  in 
tention  to  hold  that  the  causes  of  the  revolution  had 
their  origin  at  so  late  a  period,  but  for  the  reason  that 
the  principal  grievances  complained  of  reached  their 
most  aggravating  development  after  that  date. 

The  earlier  chapters  are  in  some  respects  a  pre 
liminary  studv,  in  part  an  abstract  of  a  larger,  more 
detailed  work  on  this  subject  for  which  I  have 
been  collecting  material  for  some  years.  The  first 
incentive  to  undertake  it  was  received  under  the 
guidance  of  Professor  John  Bach  McMaster,  to 
whom  is  owing  a  debt  which  it  is  a  pleasure  to 
acknowledge  here.  He  has  put  me  under  additional 
obligation  by  his  kindness  in  reviewing  a  portion  of 
the  manuscript,  and  for  encouragement  given  me  to 
push  the  work  to  completion. 

For  helpful  criticism  of  some  of  the  manuscript 
and  all  of  the  proofs,  I  am  indebted  to  Prof.  John  L. 
Stewart.  And  I  have  to  thank  my  kind  friends,  Miss 
Henrietta  Szold,  Mr.  Joseph  Jacobs,  Dr.  Cyrus 
Adler,  and  Mr.  C.  L.  Sulzberger,  for  reading  the 
proofs  and  for  many  valuable  suggestions. 

For  purposes  of  convenience  I  have  throughout 
cited  Peter  Force's  well-known  American  Archives 


PREFACE 


as  Force.  The  references  to  Jefferson's  Writings 
are  to  Ford's  edition,  and  those  to  Mass.  State 
Papers  to  Bradford's  Speeches  of  the  Governors  of 
Massachusetts,  from  1765  to  1775;  and  the  Answers 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  the  same,  etc., 
Boston,  1818. 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   I 
THE  POPULAR  UPRISING 1-29 

CHAPTER   II 
THE  CONGRESS  FINDING  ITSELF 30-49 

CHAPTER   III 

THE  IDEA  OF  INDEPENDENCE  TAKES  ROOT,  AND  THE 
CONGRESS  PREVAILS 50-76 

CHAPTER   IV 
THE  CONGRESS  AND  THE  DEMOCRACY 77-98 

CHAPTER   V 
INDEPENDENCE  IN  THE  MAKING 99-120 

CHAPTER   VI 
ADOPTING  AND  SIGNING  THE  DECLARATION 121-151 

CHAPTER   VII 
THE  DECLARATION  AND  ITS  CRITICS 152-171 

CHAPTER   VIII 

THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  DECLARATION 172-183 

xi 


Xll  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   IX                 + 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  DECLARATION 184-207 

CHAPTER   X 

(1)  THE  "  FACTS  SUBMITTED  TO  A  CANDID  WORLD  ".  208-239 

CHAPTER     XI 

(2)  THE  "  FACTS  SUBMITTED  TO  A  CANDID  WORLD".   240-259 

APPENDIX 

THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE 261-279 

INDEX  281-299 


JHW£RSITY 

\\  OF 


THE 

DECLARATION  OF   INDEPENDENCE 
AN  INTERPRETATION  AND  AN  ANALYSIS 


CHAPTER   I 
THE  POPULAR  UPRISING 

During  the  period  of  more  than  one  hundred  years 
preceding  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  repeated 
occasion  offered  for  differences  of  opinion  to  arise 
between  the  crown  and  the  colonies,  over  questions 
of  policy  and  the  interpretation  of  constitutional 
law.  Beginning  in  controversy  over  governmental 
methods,  earnest  discussion  led  on  to  serious  dis 
pute  that  finally  culminated  in  engendering  much 
bitterness  of  feeling.  Owing,  however,  to  the  lack 
of  a  definite  British  colonial  policy  consistently  car 
ried  out,  or,  more  exactly,  the  failure  to  carry  out 
consistently  the  existing  policy,  the  colonies  were  in 
large  measure  allowed  to  grow  up  neglected.  When 
laws  were  passed  by  Parliament  designed,  in  pur 
suance  of  the  mercantile  theories  of  the  age,  to 
control  the  commerce  and  productions  of  the 


2  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

colonies,  for  the  benefit  of  England,  tjiey  were 
either  not  enforced  at  all,  or  enforced  with  such  lax 
ity,  as  practically  to  nullify  their  intended  purpose.1 
This  neglect  had  a  double  effect:  it  deprived  the 
home  country  of  the  commercial  rewards  that  would 
have  been  hers  had  these  acts  been  enforced  rigidly, 
and  it  allowed  the  colonists  to  develop  their  com 
merce  largely  on  the  lines  suggested  by  an  intelligent 
perception  of  the  natural  advantages  of  their  geo 
graphical  relation  to  the  West  Indies.  In  like  man 
ner,  the  control  of  their  political  affairs  by  the  crown 
was  exercised  with  such  leniency,  in  the  main,  as 
ultimately  to  produce  a  condition  that  has  been  ad 
mirably  described  as  "  virtual  independence  with  re 
lations  of  mutual  good-will/'2 

Upon  the  accession  of  Grenville  to  power  in  1763, 
the  attempt  was  made  to  accomplish  the  impossible 
task  of  subverting  peacefully  the  multiform  customs 
and  precedents  that  a  century  of  license  had  per 
mitted  to  be  established.  If  at  this  time  King,  min 
istry  and  Parliament  could  have  fashioned  a  states 
man  in  whose  mind  would  be  found  a  combination 
of  the  wisdom  of  a  Moses  and  a  Solomon,  with  the 
philosophy  of  a  Plato  and  an  Aristotle,  he  might 
have  carried  through  to  success  the  policy  which 

1  The  number  of  British   acts   of  Parliament   affecting  the 
commerce  and  industry  of  the  colonies  in  force  at  this  time, 
footed  up  a  total  of  thirty. 

2  C.  F.  Adams,  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  I,  133. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  3 

Grenville  undertook  to  initiate.  But  nothing  short 
of  some  such  superhuman  aggregate  of  mental  re 
sources  could  have  accomplished  it.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  would  appear  as  if  Grenville  and  his  suc 
cessors  endeavored  to  carry  out  their  plans  in  a 
manner  pre-designed  to  create  as  much  irritation 
as  the  circumstances  would  allow.  If,  instead,  the 
British  authorities  had,  in  dealing  with  the  colonies, 
exercised  some  of  the  tactful  diplomacy  which  has 
won  so  many  triumphs  in  the  larger  field  of  inter 
national  affairs,  the  separation  might  have  been 
postponed  for  a  considerable  term  of  years.1 

Further,  a  serious  tactical  blunder  was  made,  by 
yielding  to  the  clamor  of  the  colonies  against  the 
Stamp  Act,  by  reason  of  which  it  was  repealed  on 
March  17, 1766.  At  the  same  time  the  act  since  gen 
erally  known  as  the  Declaratory  Act  was  made  into 
law.2  It  was  unwise  to  pass  laws  and  then  allow 
them  to  be  annulled  by  non-enforcement.  It  was  in 
the  highest  degree  injudicious  to  enact  a  measure 
containing  many  of  the  provisions  of  the  Stamp  Act. 
But  the  crowning  act  of  folly  came  with  the  repeal 
of  an  obnoxious  act  upon  the  occasion  of  the  first 
show  of  resistance  to  it,  by  means  of  the  revolution 
ary  memorials  of  the  Stamp  Act  Congress  of  1765. 
Had  the  Grenville  ministry  or  its  successor,  the 

1  This  was  Franklin's  view. 

2  See  Chapter  XL 


4  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Rockingham  Whigs,1  determined  at  all  hazards  to 
enforce  the  law  with  a  high  hand,  for  this  purpose 
calling  in  the  military  arm  of  the  government,  there 
would  have  been  an  end  to  resistance,  and  the  revo 
lution  would  have  been  postponed  for  many  years. 
When  troops  were  finally  sent  over  they  availed  little, 
for  they  were  few  in  number,  were  utilized  in  no 
spirited  manner,  and  served  only  to  raise  the  issue  of 
quartering  troops  without  consent,  in  time  of  peace, 
causing  the  additional  irritation  which  culminated 
in  the  clash  at  Boston  on  March  5,  1770.  But  in  the 
beginning  a  large  force  would  have  had  a  decided 
effect.  For  no  sort  of  extra-legal,  intercolonial  po 
litical  organizations  existed  as  yet,  nor  any  suffi 
cient  feeling  of  the  necessity  for  united  action,  such 
as  grew  up  during  the  first  ten  years  of  the  con 
troversy.  At  the  end  of  that  time  the  ramifications 
of  the  newly  created  committees  of  correspondence 
and  the  like,  were  so  widely  extended  as  to  touch 
the  popular  mind  at  every  point.  This  is  evidenced 

*The  fact  that  the  Rockingham  Whigs  were  of  a  different 
political  complexion  from  the  Grenville  ministry,  and  conse 
quently  had  no  interest  in  enforcing  the  unwelcome  acts  of 
its  predecessors,  does  not  affect  the  case.  For  they  imme 
diately  proceeded  to  pass  the  Declaratory  Act,  which  (though 
little  attention  was  paid  to  it  at  the  time  by  the  colonists) 
ultimately  proved  more  serious  in  its  consequences  than  was 
anticipated,  when  an  attempt  was  made  to  live  up  to  its  pro 
visions.  The  colonists  at  first  regarded  it  as  but  another 
British  act  passed  with  no  intention  of  being  enforced. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  5 

by  the  fact  that  only  nine  colonies  were  represented 
at  the  Stamp  Act  Congress,  all  but  three  of  the  dele 
gations  having  been  elected  by  the  respective  legal 
assemblies.  Ten  years  later,  when  but  one  colony 
failed  to  respond,1  only  five  of  the  delegations  to  the 
Congress  of  1774  were  elected  by  the  assemblies. 
The  revolutionary  organization  was  by  this  time  so 
complete  that  it  mattered  little  whether  or  not  assem 
blies  were  in  session ;  delegates  were  elected  none  the 
less  in  a  regular  and  orderly  manner  throughout  the 
colonies.2 

If  anything  approaching  an  adequate  conception 
respecting  the  temper  and  attitude  of  mind  of  the 
colonies  existed  in  England,  it  was  not  shown  in 
any  of  the  legislation  enacted,  beginning  with  the 
passage  of  the  Townshend  Acts  of  ij6j?  nor  is 
there  any  evidence  of  the  existence  of  an  apprecia 
tion  of  the  extraordinary  ability  for  dialectics  that 
had  developed  in  the  minds  of  the  foremost  Ameri 
cans.  Moreover,  through  the  Stamp  Act  Congress, 
by  its  successful  resistance  to  the  Stamp  Act,  the 
colonists  had  their  first  taste  of  the  efficiency  of 
united  action  against  Great  Britain,  when  the  inter 
ests  of  all  were  thought  to  be  at  stake.  It  had 

1  Georgia. 

2  New   Hampshire,   Virginia,   North    Carolina,   and   Georgia 
were  not  represented  at  the  Stamp  Act  Congress  because  their 
respective  assemblies  were  not  in  session  and  there  was  no 
other  organization  to  supply  the  deficiency. 

8  See  Chapter  XI. 


O  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

been  the  custom  for  a  colony  to  appeal  by  petition  to 
the  King  when  any  grievance  weighed  too  heavily 
upon  it,  and  often  with  success.  It  was  natural, 
therefore,  that  they  should  appeal  in  common  when 
all  were  concerned  alike. 

But  by  adopting  memorials  to  Lords  and  Com 
mons,  at  the  Stamp  Act  Congress,  at  the  same  time 
as  a  petition  to  the  King  was  formulated,  they  went 
further  than  they  had  any  idea  of  going,  and  took 
the  first  step  on  the  road  to  independence.  For  this 
marks  the  beginning  of  an  entire  change  in  the 
character  of  the  controversy.  Hitherto  dispute  had 
always  been  with  the  crown.  But  Parliament,  by 
the  Sugar  Act1  and  the  Stamp  Act,  had  projected 
itself  into  American  affairs,  by  passing  laws  having 
the  purpose  of  raising  revenue  by  direct  taxation, 
and  the  colonists  were  not  slow  to  make  that 
branch  of  the  British  government  a  party  to  their 
disputes.  This,  however,  is  the  only  occasion  on 
which  the  colonists  as  a  body  addressed  Parliament 
directly,  and  demonstrates  the  unformed  character 
of  the  colonial  opposition.  After  opportunity  had 
been  given  for  an  interchange  of  views  respecting 
the  grounds  of  the  colonial  contentions,  and  a  defi 
nite  stand  had  been  taken,  the  tactical  error  of  ap 
pealing  to  Parliament  was  not  repeated.  As  the 
controversy  advanced,  though  Parliament  was  held 

1  April  5,  1764.     See  Chapter  XL 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING 


llJ 


at  fault,  the  doctrine  was  consistently  maintained 
that  the  King  had  it  within  his  power  to  right  their 
wrongs,  and  to  him  must  all  appeals  be  made.  The 
colonists  gradually  renounced  all  consideration  of 
parliamentary  control,  and  they  would  stultify  them 
selves  by  appealing  for  redress  to  a  power  whose 
authority  they  would  not  recognize. 

Further,  an  examination  of  the  declaration  of 
rights  and  of  the  petition  and  memorials  of  the 
Stamp  Act  Congress  discloses  a  fundamental  dif 
ference  between  them  and  the  documents  issued 
subsequently.  The  theory  of  the  natural  right  of 
Englishmen  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  British 
constitution,  to  representation,  to  taxation  only  by 
representatives,  and  to  trial  by  jury,  figure  con 
spicuously,  it  is  true,  in  the  state  papers  of  the 
Stamp  Act  Congress.  But,  side  by  side  with  these, 
and  raised  to  equal  importance,  were  put  the  eco 
nomic  reasons  why  the  enforcement  of  the  Stamp 
Act  and  the  recently  revised  trade  laws  would  prove 
burdensome.  The  colonies  would  be  drained  of 
specie,  they  held,  rendering  it  impossible  to  pay  the 
debts  due  England's  merchants ;  the  profits  Great 
Britain  would  derive  from  her  trade  with  the  col 
onies  would  be  decreased  materially,  because  they 
would  be  made  so  poor  as  to  be  unable  to  pur 
chase  needed  commodities ;  and  they  would,  there 
fore,  be  unable  to  bear  the  burden  of  paying  the 


8  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

taxes  imposed  by  the  Stamp  Act,  short  of  absolute 
ruin.  Another  point  should  be  noted:  the  tone 
of  these  appeals  is  far  more  moderate.  Rights  are 
asserted  with  much  less  vehemence,  and  there  is 
much  more  show  of  a  conciliatory  spirit  than  is  evi 
dent  in  any  of  the  documents  produced  by  the  next 
congress.1 

But  a  new  phase  was  entered  upon  with  the  repeal 
of  the  Stamp  Act  and  the  passage  of  the  Declaratory 
Act.  In  this  the  assertion  of  the  colonists  that 
their  own  assemblies  had  the  sole  and  exclusive  right 
of  imposing  duties  and  taxes  was  denounced,  and 
it  was  specifically  declared  that  the  colonies  "  have 
been,  are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  subordinate 
unto,  and  dependent  upon  the  imperial  crown  of 
Great  Britain;  and  that  the  King's  majesty,  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  lords  spiritual 
and  temporal,  and  commons  of  Great  Britain,  in 
parliament  assembled,  had,  hath,  and  of  right  ought 
to  have,  full  power  and  authority  to  make  laws  and 
statutes  of  sufficient  force  and  validity  to  bind  the 
colonies  and  people  of  America,  subjects  of  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain,  in  all  cases  whatsoever."2 
The  economic  burdens  of  which  the  colonies  com- 

1  The  proceedings   of  the   Stamp  Act   Congress   are  to   be 
found  in  Niles'  Principles  and  Acts  of  the  Revolution,  1822, 
451  et  seq. 

2  The  text  of  the  act  can  be   found  most  conveniently  in 
MacDonald's  Select  Charters  Illustrative  of  American  History, 
1606-1775,  316. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  9 

plained  having  been  removed,  they  were  led  to 
hope  that  since  the  change  in  the  ministry,  and  the 
return  to  power  of  the  Whigs,  Rockingham  would 
not  enforce  the  revised  trade  regulations.  Their 
economic  grievances  being  practically  at  an  end,  the 
Declaratory  Act,  another  of  Great  Britain's  meas 
ures  of  unwisdom,  was  made  the  means  of  carry 
ing  on  the  controversy,  whose  entire  character  was 
now  transformed  from  one  in  which  economic 
and  political  elements  played  an  equal  part  to  one 
having  almost  exclusively  a  political  basis.  Com 
plaint  respecting  the  effects  and  workings  of  any 
of  the  subsequent  British  acts,  is  never  again  based 
on  grounds  that  may  be  regarded  as  primarily  eco 
nomic.  The  only  economic  phase  of  the  subsequent 
controversy  is  found  when  non-importation  agree 
ments  are  entered  into,  with  the  view  to  oppressing 
British  merchants  engaged  in  colonial  commerce  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  induce  them  to  espouse  the 
cause  of  the  colonists,  and  make  them  work  to  have 
the  obnoxious  acts  repealed  to  save  themselves  from 
ruin. 

The  repressive  measures  of  Hillsbo rough  of  1768, 
and  the  retention  of  the  duty  on  tea  in  April,  1770, 
when  the  other  Townshend  taxes  of  I7671  were  re 
pealed,  are  of  a  piece  with  the  Declaratory  Act  in 
their  effect  in  emphasizing  the  transformation  of  the 

xThe  nature  and  effect  of  these  several  acts  are  described 
in  chapters  X  and  XI. 


10  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

character  of  the  dispute.  The  tea  duty  was  re 
tained  for  the  same  reason  that  prompted  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Declaratory  Act — to  maintain  the  prin 
ciple  of  parliamentary  authority — and  was  but  an 
other  in  the  long  list  of  deeds  of  unwisdom  of  the 
British  government.  By  repealing  the  other  duties 
Parliament  yielded  to  popular  clamor,  as  in  the  repeal 
of  the  Stamp  Act,  but  retained  an  obnoxious  measure 
that  was  to  prove  a  fruitful  source  of  further  irrita 
tion.  A  partial  repeal,  with  the  retention  of  one 
duty  designed  for  a  purpose  only  too  well  known  in 
America,  was  folly  worse  confounded,  and  showed 
that  there  was  no  real  conception  in  England  of  the 
earnestness  and  determination  of  the  Americans,  nor 
of  the  nature  of  the  independent  development  of 
political  institutions  produced  by  a  century  of  ex 
perience.  The  events  that  had  transpired  in  the  five 
years  succeeding  the  passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  were 
productive  of  great  results,  so  that  by  1770  the  con 
troversy  had  been  pushed  to  the  point  from  which 
must  issue  either  complete  submission  of  the  colonies 
to  England,  or  else  independence. 

In  Great  Britain  at  the  end  of  the  hundred  years 
subsequent  to  the  Puritan  Revolution,  the  reaction 
had  reproduced  a  virtual  kingly  autocracy,  though 
within  certain  legal  and  constitutional  bounds.  By 
force  of  his  dominating  personality,  the  King, 
though  nominally  guided  by  his  ministers,  had  made 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  I  I 

himself  the  directing  head  of  the  nation's  affairs,  and 
practically  controlled  his  cabinet  and  Parliament 
as  he  saw  fit.  In  America,  where  the  structure  of 
society  was  far  simpler,  there  had  been  no  such  re 
action.  On  the  contrary,  there  had  been  a  constant 
development  along  the  democratic  lines  made  famil 
iar  by  the  popular  uprisings  under  Cromwell.  In 
consequence  the  political  ideas  of  Locke  passed  cur 
rent  not  alone  in  the  Puritan  colonies  of  New  Eng 
land,  but  were  received  at  their  face  value  in  the 
other  colonies  which  at  their  foundation  had  noth 
ing  in  common  with  the  Puritan  ideals.  By  rea 
son  of  the  extent  to  which  the  colonists  participated 
in  their  political  affairs  throughout  the  colonies, 
the  laxity  with  which  parliamentary  enactments 
were  enforced,  and  the  leniency  shown  by  the 
crown,  a  complete  administrative  machinery  of  their 
own  was  developed  in  many  respects  far  in  advance 
of  anything  of  a  similar  nature  existing  in  Great 
Britain.  In  other  words  they  had  brought  over  with 
them  a  perfect  familiarity  with  British  constitutional 
and  administrative  forms,  which,  owing  to  the  more 
democratic  nature  of  the  conditions  under  which 
they  lived,  produced  a  body  politic  in  which  prac 
tically  every  property  owner  had  a  stake.  Out  of 
this  was  evolved  an  attachment  for  their  own 
methods,  as  strong  as  that  of  any  parent  for  its  child. 
The  questions  at  issue  previous  to  1763  had  been 


12  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

argued  with  the  crown,  either  directly  or  through 
the  royal  governors,  often  with  great  earnestness, 
though  only  on  occasion  with  a  show  of  heat.  But 
with  the  change  in  the  nature  of  the  dispute  from 
one  between  King  and  colonies,  in  which  the  points 
of  disagreement  were  localised,  were  peculiar  to 
each  colony,  and  did  not  permit  of  any  united  op 
position,  to  one  between  Parliament  and  colonies, 
in  which,  among  others,  the  principle  of  taxation  was 
at  issue,  affecting  all  alike,  the  natural  passions 
were  aroused  that  are  ordinarily  engendered  when 
the  attempt  is  made  by  an  outsider  to  appro 
priate  and  convert  to  his  own  use  what  one  believes 
to  be  his  own  property,  the  fruit  of  his  toil.  Their 
point  of  view  was  admirably  stated  by  Burke  when 
he  said  "  a  great  people  who  have  their  property, 
without  any  reserve,  disposed  of  by  another  people 
at  an  immense  distance  from  them,  will  not  think 
themselves  in  the  enjoyment  of  liberty."1  That  taxa 
tion  without  representation  was  tyranny,  and  nothing 
less,  became  the  doctrine  universally  held.  It  was  re 
peatedly  reiterated  that,  by  the  nature  of  their  loca 
tion,  they  had  and  could  have  representation  only  in 
their  assemblies,  by  which  alone  they  would  therefore 
consent  to  be  taxed.2  As  one  man  they  flung  back 

Speech  on  "State  of  the  Nation,"  Works  II,  170. 

2  It  is  true  that  Otis  in  his  pamphlet  The  Rights  of  the 
British  Colonies  Asserted,  1764,  advocated  colonial  repre 
sentation  in  Parliament,  but  this  idea  did  not  attain  to  gen- 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  13 

and  would  have  none  of  the  British  idea  of  virtual 
representation,  which  was  that  the  colonies  were  not 
less  represented  than  the  people  of  Great  Britain, 
five-sixths  of  whom  had  no  share  in  the  election  of  , 
members  of  Parliament,  by  reason  of  the  corrupt 
and  inefficient  British  system.  That  a  member  of 
Parliament  was  as  much  a  member  for  the  whole 
empire  as  for  the  constituency  which  sent  him,  was 
the  theory  held  as  largely  then  as  now.  But  it  did 
not  appeal  to  the  colonists,  grown  accustomed  to  the 
benefits  of  actual  representation. 

The  unanimity  of  the  acceptance  of  the  idea 
of  the  interrelation  of  representation  and  taxation, 
as  also  the  wide  extent  of  the  belief  in  the  theories 
that  man  was  born  with  certain  natural,  inalienable 
rights,  and  that  government  derived  its  origin  from 
a  compact  for  mutual  protection,  was  due  to  the  re 
markable  series  of  disquisitions  on  the  rights  of  the 
colonies,  the  nature  and  extent  of  these  rights,  and 
the  constitutional  limitations  to  parliamentary  con 
trol,  which  the  five  years  of  discussion  had  produced. 
Every  man  who  was  ready  with  the  pen, — and  the' 
number  of  these  indicated  an  unusual  diffusion  of 
skill  in  political  debate, — contributed  his  share, 
though  the  productions  of  men  like  James  Otis, 

eral  adoption.  In  the  Declaration  of  Rights  of  1774  it  was 
specifically  stated  as  the  colonial  contention  that  the  colonies 
could  be  represented  only  in  the  colonial  legislatures.  See 
Declaration  of  Rights,  article  4. 


14  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Samuel  and  John  Adams,  Richard  Bland,  Daniel 
Dulany,  John  Dickinson,  and  Stephen  Hopkins,  stand 
out  in  especial  prominence.  Without  going  into  an 
examination  of  the  merits  of  their  arguments,  it 
suffices  to  draw  attention  to  the  fact  that  they  served 
to  familiarize  the  public,  in  the  widest  possible  de 
gree,  with  a  reasonable  theory  of  the  origins  of  gov 
ernment,  and  of  the  constitutional  relations  between 
the  colonies  and  Great  Britain.  They  made  every 
freeholder  believe  and  maintain  that  he  possessed 
certain  rights  and  privileges  which  were  far  too 
sacred  to  permit  of  being  infringed  by  any  acts  of 
King  or  Parliament,  and  for  which  it  was  his  duty 
to  contend,  with  all  the  power  that  in  him  lay.  The 
men  who  wrote  these  often  stirring  pamphlets  were 
the  same  who  in  legislative  assemblies  embodied 
their  thoughts  in  the  form  of  resolutions  and  me 
morials,  and  thus  gave  them  not  only  the  widest 
circulation,  but  a  semi-legal  character  as  well,  mak 
ing  them  the  acts  of  the  people.  There  were  able 
counterblasts,  too,  notably  from  the  well-attuned 
trumpet  of  Jonathan  Boucher,  proclaimer  of  the 
sacred  rights  of  kings  and  government.  But  they 
were  not  sufficiently  harmonious  in  these  prelim 
inary  stages  to  make  any  strong  impression.  Not 
until  the  later  point  was  reached  of  the  practical 
denial  of  parliamentary  authority,  dating  from  1774, 
does  this  opposition  become  in  any  way  important. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  15 

In  fact,  one  of  the  most  striking  elements  in  the 
preliminary  stages  of  the  revolution,  is  the  extra 
ordinary  unanimity  of  opinion  as  to  the  existence 
of  rights  and  of  serious  infringements  of  them  pre 
vailing  throughout  the  colonies. 

Not  much  more  was  required,  therefore,  to  make 
the  parties  at  issue  fall  farther  and  farther  apart. 
Nor  was  there  a  question  as  to  whether  the  colonies 
or  the  home  government  had  the  greater  weight  of 
authoritative  legal  opinion  on  its  side.  It  has  come 
to  be  admitted  that  the  preponderance  of  constitu 
tional  law  was  with  those  favoring  the  parliamen 
tary  contention,  and  that  both  English  political 
parties  were  at  one  in  their  belief  in  the  legality 
of  parliamentary  dominance  over  the  colonies  as  em 
bodied  in  the  Declaratory  Act,  whatever  may  have 
been  their  differences  on  other  points.  No  one  had 
firmer  faith  in  this  doctrine  than  Pitt  himself,  the 
idol  of  America,  under  whose  ministry  the  Act  was 
passed.  The  extent  of  administrative  development 
in  America  through  the  legislative  assemblies,  and 
the  firmness  of  the  faith  that  full  justification  for 
the  colonists'  attitude  was  found  in  the  current  in 
terpretation  of  the  origin  and  ends  of  government, 
should  not  have  been  overlooked  by  the  British 
statesmen.  That  there  was  a  power  above  the  con 
stitution  from  which  rights  were  derived,  was  an 
idea  as  generally  diffused  as  that  Americans  were 


1 6  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

free-born  English  subjects  and  entitled  to  all  their 
rights  and  privileges.  In  contests  over  the  interpre 
tation  of  constitutional  and  political  theories,  the 
question  is  ultimately  decided  not  by  the  weight  of 
legal  precedents,  but  by  the  sacrifices  which  the  par 
ties  at  issue  are  willing  to  make  when  points  of 
difference  prove  irreconcilable.  In  fundamentals, 
as  has  been  well  said,  all  constitutional  questions  are 
"  questions  of  power,  and  not  of  law."1  The 
theories  of  America  and  England  were  so  much  at 
variance  by  this  time  that  nothing  short  of  abso 
lute  submission  of  the  one  or  the  other  could  bring 
about  a  peaceful  solution.  That  the  latter  was  not 
to  result,  the  events  of  the  four  years  succeeding 
1770  made  inevitable.  Clashes  between  soldiery 
and  populace  were  succeeded  by  repeated  acts  of 
violence  in  resistance  to  authority  in  which  the 
military  arm  played  little  or  no  part.  A  spirit  of 
lawlessness,  so  far  as  the  enforcement  of  British 
acts  was  concerned,  was  manifested  side  by  side 
with  the  most  perfect  respect  for  legislative  acts  of 
the  colonists'  own  creation. 

In  the  meantime,  as  assemblies  were  being  pro 
rogued  throughout  the  colonies,  and  as  this  admin 
istrative  machinery  was  in  danger  of  breaking  down, 
recourse  was  had  to  a  new  expedient  for  political 
control,  the  Committees  of  Correspondence.  At  first 

1  Sir  James  Fitzjames  Stephen,  Horce  Sabbaticce,  III,  120. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  I/ 

appointed  by  the  assemblies,  they  gradually  came 
into  existence  almost  everywhere  by  original  au 
thority  of  the  people,  and  their  variety  of  forms 
made  necessary  by  difference  of  conditions,  is  a 
striking  witness  to  the  wide  diffusion  of,  familiarity 
with,  and  capacity  for  political  organization.1  They 
served  to  keep  the  colonists  in  touch  with  each  other, 
by  extending  their  activities  even  beyond  the  bounds 
of  the  individual  colonies.  They  thus  performed  the 
function  of  an  intercolonial  clearing  house,  through 
which  the  inhabitants  of  one  colony  were  made  fa 
miliar  with  the  occurrences  taking  place  in  another. 
When,  therefore,  Great  Britain  in  1774  began  her 
policy  of  attempting  to  coerce  the  colonies  into  sub 
mission,  it  was  too  late  to  meet  with  success,  for  an 
effective  instrument  for  resistance  had  been  de 
veloped  as  the  result  of  the  previous  ten  years  of 
discussion.  Moreover,  as  was  ultimately  proved, 
the  colonists  were  willing  to  sacrifice  their  all 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  principles  which  they 
firmly  believed  were  involved.  Familiarity  with  the 
uses  to  which  their  extra-legal  committee  organiza 
tions  could  be  put,  for  purposes  of  colonial  and 
intercolonial  communication,  made  it  natural  that 
still  greater  reliance  should  be  placed  upon  them 
when  the  question  of  convening  a  continental  con- 

1  On  Committees  of  Correspondence  and  their  significance, 
see  the  able  treatment  which  they  receive  at  the  hand  of  Dr. 
Edward  D.  Collins,  in  Rep't  American  Hist.  Assn.,  1901,  I,  243. 


1 8  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

gress  for  mutual  support  was  before  them.  Thus 
it  happened,  that  of  the  twelve  colonies  sending 
delegates  to  the  Congress  but  five  acted  through 
their  assemblies,  though  three1  of  these  were  so 
completely  in  control  of  the  revolutionists  as  scarcely 
to  be  of  significance  in  this  connection.  All  of  the 
remaining  delegations  were  chosen  by  some  form 
of  committee  organization. 

The  Congress  which  convened  at  Carpenter's  Hall 
/  in  Philadelphia,  on  September  5,  1774,  had,  there 
fore,  a  much  more  popular  basis  than  any  Congress 
heretofore  called  together.  And  whereas  recourse 
was  had  in  the  past  to  the  various  committees  of 
correspondence  for  purposes  of  united  action,  under 
the  more  difficult  and  complex  conditions  that  had 
arisen,  their  place  was  now  to  be  taken  by  this  new 
engine  of  political  organization.  The  Congress  and 
the  local  committees  bore  to  each  other  relations  of 
interdependence:  the  committees  created  the  Con 
gress,  and  the  Congress  in  turn  looked  to  the  com 
mittees  to  enforce  its  recommendations.  The  voice 
that  the  committees  had  in  calling  the  Congress  into 
being,  thereby  giving  it  a  popular  character,  spoke 
out  even  to  the  extent  of  outlining  the  work  that  it 
was  to  undertake. 

In  their  instructions,  either  to  delegates  directly, 
or  to  committees  that  were  to  have  a  share  in  the 

1  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and  Massachusetts. 


THE  POPULAR  UPRISING  19 

election  of  delegates,  the  people  gave  expression  to 
their  desires  in  not  uncertain  tones.  The  credentials 
which  the  delegates  bore  to  this  first  Continental 
Congress  were  in  the  main  of  the  same  character. 
They  were  authorized  in  general  to  devise  measures 
that  would  extricate  the  colonies  from  the  difficulties 
with  which  they  were  beset,  to  state  the  rights  and 
privileges  to  which  on  constitutional  grounds  they 
were  entitled,  and  to  endeavor  to  restore  harmony, 
mutual  confidence,  and  union.1  Behind  these  creden 
tials,  however,  and  of  a  much  more  specific  character, 
were  the  instructions  issued  to  the  delegates  by 
their  constituent  bodies.  Three  days  after  the 
Boston  Port  Bill  reached  that  town  her  citizens 
gave  expression  to  their  view  that  the  salvation  of 
North  America  depended  on  the  other  colonies  com 
ing  to  a  general  agreement  to  stop  all  importation.2 
It  was  on  this  hint  that  the  colonies  spoke  for  a  gen 
eral  Congress.  At  the  same  time,  the  suggestion 
of  obtaining  redress  by  the  adoption  of  commercial 
restrictions  was  taken  up  by  no  less  than  six  of  the 
colonies.  Definitive  resolutions  were  passed  in  Mary 
land,3  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Vir- 


credentials  are  to  be  found  in  Journal  of  Congress 
for  1774. 

2  May  13,  1774,  Force,  4th,  I,  331. 

s  Maryland's  resolutions  were  passed  June  22,  1774,  Force, 
4th,  I,  439  ;  Pennsylvania's  on  July  15,  ibid.,  555  ;  New  Jersey's 
July  21,  ibid.,  624;  Delaware's  August  2,  ibid.,  668;  Virginia's 


2O  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

ginia,  and  North  Carolina,  authorizing  their  repre 
sentatives  to  enter  into  non-importation  and  non- 
exportation  agreements  if  the  representatives  of  the 
other  colonies  were  of  the  same  mind.  South  Caro 
lina  alone  had  considered  the  matter  and  voted  it 
down,  substituting  general  instructions,  and  proved 
later  on  the  stumbling  block  over  which  the  Con 
gress  came  near  falling.1  Maryland  and  Virginia 
went  even  further  and  embodied  their  views  respect 
ing  commercial  aggression,  in  the  credentials  to  their 
delegates,  while  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  pledged 
themselves  in  advance  to  support  the  Congress  in 
whatever  action  it  might  take  in  addition  to  these 
measures, 

Thus  the  Congress  before  it  met  was  committed 
to  issuing  a  statement  of  the  rights  and  grievances 
of  the  colonists  and  to  the  adoption  of  the  only 
powerful  and  efficient  means  at  hand  to  effect  the  re 
peal  of  the  obnoxious  acts — a  non-importation 
and  non-exportation  agreement.  It  was  generally 
appreciated  that  their  objects  could  not  be  attained 
without  some  form  of  central  organization  which 
should  extend  beyond  any  hitherto  known.  The 
Congress,  therefore,  was  the  natural  advance  from 

August  1-6,  ibid.,  689 ;  North  Carolina's  August  27,  ibid.,  689. 
In  Rhode  Island  especially,  the  town  meetings  expressed  sim 
ilar  views,  as  was  the  case  in  many  instances  elsewhere. 

1  See  John  Adams'  Diary,  Works,  II,  382  et  seq.,  393  et  seq.; 
McCrady,  South  Carolina  under  Royal  Gov't.,  762  et  seq. 


THE  POPULAR  UPRISING  21 

the  committee  organizations,  and  served  as  the  ex 
pression  of  the  popular  desire  for  united  action  and 
for  the  creation  of  a  policy  on  which  such  action 
might  be  based. 

The  Congress  in  turn  showed  its  appreciation  of 
the  fact  that  it  was  the  creature  of  the  popular  will 
and  dependent  on  it  for  the  success  of  its  resolves 
by  three  acts  of  striking  significance.  The  first 
was  the  unanimous  and  immediate  endorsement 
of  the  resolutions  of  the  Suffolk  County  Com 
mittee,  recommending  "  a  perseverance  in  the  same 
firm  and  temperate  conduct  as  expressed  in  the 
resolutions/'1  Firm  they  undoubtedly  were,  but  a 
perusal  will  disclose  that  "  temperate  "  is  scarcely 
the  other  adjective  by  which  they  should,  in  truth, 
be  described.2  The  pledge  of  Suffolk  County,  to 
support  whatever  the  Congress  determined  on,  went 
a  long  way  toward  influencing  it  in  taking  this 
radical  action.  Their  assurance  was  the  first  infor 
mation  of  this  nature  officially  conveyed,  as  the  reso 
lutions  of  the  Congress  thereon  were  the  first  public 
expression  of  the  fact  that  the  colonies  would  sup 
port  each  other  and  stand  as  one  man  in  the  con 
test.  By  the  endorsement  of  these  resolutions  the 
Congress  gave  the  sanction  of  its  authority  to  the 
most  recent  American  view  respecting  the  constitu- 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  September  17,  1774. 

2  The  Suffolk  Resolutions  are  to  be  found  in  the  Journal  of 
Congress,  September  17,  1774. 


22  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

tional  relations  of  Parliament  and  the  colonies,  that 
of  no  legislation  without  representation.  From  this 
to  war  for  independence  was  inevitably  but  a  short 
step. 

Secondly,  came  the  letter  to  General  Gage1  de 
manding  the  cessation  of  activity  on  the  part  of 
his  troops,  in  which  the  Congress  proclaims  that  its 
members  are  "  appointed  the  guardians "  of  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  the  colonies.  And,  lastly, 
we  have  the  clauses  of  the  Articles  of  Association, 
(practically  an  ordinance  of  nullification,  and  the 
expression  of  the  previously  announced  popular  de 
sire),  by  which  enforcement  of  its  provisions  was 
to  be  ensured,  and  which  mark  a  still  further  de 
velopment  in  government  by  committee.  These 
Articles  as  finally  adopted  and  signed  on  October 
20,  prohibited  the  importation  of  British  products 
after  December  i,  1774,  as  also  of  certain  enu 
merated  commodities  from  the  West  Indies,  and  of 
East  India  tea  no  matter  whence  derived ;  nor 
were  any  slaves  to  be  brought  in  after  that  date 
nor  the  trade  in  them  continued.  No  tea  was  to  be 
used  or  purchased  on  which  any  duty  had  been 
paid,  and  none  whatever  after  the  first  of  March, 
1775.  After  September  10,  1775,  unless  all  the 
acts  complained  of  had  been  repealed  in  the  interval, 
no  commodities,  excepting  "  rice  to  Europe,"  were  to 
1  October  n,  1774. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  23 

be  exported  to  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  or  the  West 
Indies.  Committees  were  to  be  chosen  in  every 
county,  city,  and  town,  by  those  qualified  to  vote  for 
representatives  in  the  legislature.  Their  business 
was  to  see  that  the  Association  was  not  violated,  and 
that  violators  of  it  should  be  practically  boycotted. 
The  Committees  of  Correspondence,  further,  were 
given  plenary  instructions  to  examine  entries  at  the 
custom  houses  to  obtain  evidence  of  the  violation 
of  the  Association.  In  addition  to  the  Articles  of 
Association,  this  Congress  adopted  a  Declaration  of 
Rights,  a  petition  to  the  King,  and  issued  addresses 
to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  to  the  inhabitants  of 
the  colonies,  and  a  special  one  to  those  of  Quebec. 

Among  the  very  earliest  of  the  important  acts  of 
the  first  Congress  was  the  decision,  reached  only 
after  much  discussion,  to  limit  any  statement 
of  rights  to  such  "  as  have  been  infringed  by 
acts  of  the  British  parliament  since  the  year 
1763,  postponing  the  further  consideration  of  the 
general  state  of  American  rights  to  a  future  day."1 
This  is  self-explanatory  and  gave  a  definitiveness  to 
the  controversy  that  would  not  otherwise  have  been 
obtained. 

To  frame  a  declaration  of  rights  was  one  of  the 
principal  duties  of  this  Congress,  thereby  to  fix  a 
common  ground  upon  which  all  could  stand.  But 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  September  24 ;  John  Adams,  Works, 
I,  160 ;  II,  370  et  seq. 


24  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

at  the  outset  a  stumbling  block  was  met  with,  when 
consideration  was  given  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
authority  of  Parliament  was  to  be  recognized  in  this 
declaration.  Upon  this  point  there  was  wide  diver 
gence  of  opinion,  and  various  propositions  were 
advanced.  Some  proposed  drawing  the  distinction 
between  internal  and  external  taxation,  some  advo 
cated  the  denial  of  the  applicability  to  the  colonies 
of  any  statute  wherein  taxation  was  intended,  and 
some  even  the  disavowal  of  any  parliamentary  au 
thority  whatever.  Finally  John  Adams  came  for 
ward  with  his  equivocal  compromise  proposition. 
In  this,  while  claiming  the  exclusive  power  to  legis 
late  in  their  own  representative  assemblies  upon  all 
matters  of  taxation  and  internal  polity,  subject  only 
to  the  negative  of  their  sovereign,  the  willingness 
was  expressed,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case  and 
for  the  purpose  of  "  securing  the  commercial  advan 
tages  of  the  whole  empire  to  the  mother  country," 
to  consent  to  the  operation  of  all  laws  regulating 
commerce  with  other  countries,  "  excluding  every 
idea  of  taxation,  internal  or  external,  for  raising 
a  revenue  on  the  subjects  in  America  without  their 
consent." x  This  forms  the  fourth  of  the  rights 
embodied  in  this  declaration,  and  with  the  sixth  is 
the  only  one  which  did  not  meet  with  unanimous  ap 
proval.  The  preamble  of  the  Declaration  of  Rights, 
Adams,  Works,  II,  397;  Journal  of  Congress. 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  25 

as  passed  on  October  14,  contains  a  summary 
of  all  the  acts  of  Parliament  passed  "  since  the  close 
of  the  last  war  "  which  are  viewed  as  infringing 
rights,  and  enacted  with  a  view  to  subjecting  the 
colonists  to  a  jurisdiction  and  control  which  they 
cannot  recognize.  Added  to  this  their  assemblies 
have  been  frequently  dissolved,  and  their  "  dutiful, 
humble,  loyal,  and  reasonable "  petitions  treated 
with  contempt.  In  consequence,  they,  the  duly 
appointed,  elected,  and  constituted  representatives 
of  the  colonies  have  come  together  "  in  order  to 
obtain  such  establishment,  as  that  their  religion, 
laws  and  liberties  may  not  be  subverted/'  Follow 
ing  comes  an  enumeration  of  the  rights  and  privi 
leges  to  which,  "  by  the  immutable  laws  of  nature, 
the  principles  of  the  English  constitution,  and  the 
several  charters  and  compacts,"  they  are  entitled. 
These  are  (i)  the  right  to  life,  liberty  and  prop 
erty;  (2)  the  rights,  liberties  and  immunities  of 
natural  born  Englishmen,  (3)  none  of  which  was 
lost  by  emigration ;  (4)  representation  in  their  own 
legislatures  and  taxation  by  them  only;  (5)  enjoy 
ment  of  the  benefits  of  the  common  law  of  Eng 
land,  trial  by  jury,  and  (6)  the  English  statutes  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  colonization  and  applicable 
to  their  condition;  (7)  the  immunities  and  privi 
leges  granted  in  the  charters  and  secured  by  the 
codes  of  provincial  laws ;  (8)  the  right  to  assemble, 


26  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

to  consider  grievances,  and  to  petition  5(9)  that  it  is 
against  law  to  keep  a  standing  army  in  the  colonies 
in  time  of  peace;  (10)  and  that  it  is  destructive 
of  the  freedom  of  America  for  legislative  power 
to  be  exercised  by  a  council  appointed  to  hold  office 
during  pleasure  of  the  crown.  An  enumeration  of 
the  thirteen  specific  laws  in  which  these  rights  and 
privileges  are  infringed  follows,  with  the  demand  for 
their  repeal  if  harmony  is  to  be  restored.  Submis 
sion  to  them  is  declared  out  of  the  question,  and  to 
ensure  their  repeal  an  agreement  for  non-importa 
tion,  non-consumption  and  non-exportation  is  to  be 
entered  into,  and  addresses  to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain  and  America,  as  also  a  loyal  petition  to  the 
King  to  be  prepared. 

The  place  of  the  address  to  Parliament  of  the 
Stamp  Act  Congress,  was  now  taken  by  the  address 
to  the  people  of  Great  Britain,  (the  work  of  John 
Jay),  and  illustrates  the  point  adverted  to  before  re 
specting  the  development  of  the  controversy.  What 
aim  it  was  hoped  to  further  by  this  address  is 
not  quite  clear,  for  the  addressers  were  as  familiar 
as  we  now  are  with  the  little  influence  the  people 
at  large  had  upon  England's  politics.  But  it  was 
thought  well  to  cherish  the  fiction  that  the  people 
were  responsible  for  the  character  of  the  Parlia 
ment  they  supposedly  elected,  as  the  assemblies 
represented  the  people  of  the  colonies.  And  they 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  2/ 

were,  therefore,  appealed  to  in  the  hope  "  that  the 
magnanimity  and  justice  of  the  British  nation  will 
furnish  a  parliament  of  such  wisdom,  independence, 
and  public  spirit,  as  may  save  the  violated  rights 
of  the  whole  empire,  from  the  devices  of  wicked 
ministers  and  evil,  counsellors,  whether  in  or  out 
of  office ;  and  thereby  restore  that  harmony,  friend 
ship,  and  fraternal  affection,  between  all  the  inhabit 
ants  of  His  Majesty's  kingdoms  and  territories  so 
ardently  wished  for,  by  every  true  and  honest 
American." 

The  address  to  the  people  of  the  colonies,  the 
handiwork  of  Richard  Henry  Lee,  served  as  an  ex 
planation  and  justification  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
Congress,  and  is  a  remarkably  calm  and  well-written 
recital  of  rights  and  grievances  and  of  the  proposals 
for  redress.  The  humble  though  firm  petition  to 
the  King,  bearing  the  impress  of  Dickinson's  able 
mind,  was  an  admirably  conceived  document,  and 
might  have  impressed  a  more  obstinate  king  had  he 
been  open  to  reason.  The  address  to  the  people  of 
Quebec  was  an  attempt  to  draw  them  into  the  con 
troversy,  but  had  no  better  success  than  the  more 
energetic  measures  of  the  spring  of  I776.1 

Naturally,  the  revolutionary  measures  that  had 
been  adopted  met  with  the  disapproval  of  large 
numbers  of  people,  who  now  voiced  their  dissenting 

1  See  pp.  83-84. 


28  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

views  in  the  public  prints.  They  saw  that  if  per 
sisted  in,  civil  war  would  be  the  end,  and  while 
they  were  willing  to  follow  the  leaders  to  the  verge 
of  the  precipice,  they  stopped  in  horror  at  the  sight 
of  the  chaotic  abyss  beyond.  An  opposition  party 
now  sprang  into  existence,  destined  to  have  a 
serious  influence  upon  the  conduct  of  affairs  within 
as  well  as  without  the  Congress. 

Spirited  and  outspoken  as  were  the  resolutions  of 
the  Congress  of  1774  in  stating  their  demands, 
there  is  no  sign  among  them  all  that  can  rightly  be 
interpreted  as  indicating  a  wish  for  the  establish 
ment,  even  remotely,  of  an  independent  government. 
Nor  could  there  have  been.  For  the  instructions 
to  the  delegates,  and  their  credentials  as  well,  were 
practically  unanimous  in  expressing  the  desire  that 
such  measures  as  were  passed,  should  be  not  less  in 
the  interest  of  the  restoration  of  harmony  and  union 
than  for  the  redress  of  grievances. 

It  is  questionable,  also,  whether  such  avowed 
radicals  as  John  and  Samuel  Adams,  Jefferson,  and 
Patrick  Henry,  would  have  advocated  independence 
in  earnest  at  this  time,  had  the  opportunity  been 
favorable.  To  speak  loosely  as  they  did,  to  the 
effect  that  if  matters  did  not  take  a  turn  for  the 
better,  independence  was  the  inevitable  outcome,  was 
far  different  from  establishing  a  definite  concerted 
plan  having  that  aim  in  view.  They  were  too 


THE   POPULAR   UPRISING  2Q 

skilled  as  politicians  to  be  the  upholders  of  a 
policy  that  would  have  damned  at  the  outset  the 
cause  into  which  they  had  thrown  themselves  body 
and  soul.  Many  months  had  to  pass,  and  many 
irritating  events  occur  during  the  year  following  the 
adjournment  of  the  Congress  of  1774,  before  we 
find  the  tide  changing,  and  the  country  drifting  at 
first,  and  then  guided  skillfully,  into  the  swift  cur 
rent  of  independence.1 

Having  performed  the  functions  for  which  it  was 
called  into  being,  the  Congress  dissolved  on  October 
26,  to  meet  again,  if  occasion  required,  in  May  of 
the  following  year. 

1  See  in  this  connection  Sparks'  Washington,  II,  Appendix 
X,  and  Winsor,  Narrative  and  Critical  History,  VI,  248-251, 
255. 


CHAPTER   II 
THE  CONGRESS  FINDING  ITSELF 

Practically  the  same  men  who  had  separated 
in  October  of  the  previous  year,  and  represent 
ing  the  same  politically  organized  bodies,  found 
themselves  once  more  entrusted  with  the  affairs  of 
America,  when  they  reconvened  at  Philadelphia  on 
May  10,  1775.  They  had  used  the  interval  to  good 
purpose,  and  throughout  the  colonies  had  been  in 
strumental  in  having  the  acts  of  the  previous  Con 
gress  supported  by  resolutions  of  assemblies,  conven 
tions,  and  committees.  So  that  they  were  reassured, 
if  any  reassurance  were  needed,  that  so  far  as  they 
had  gone,  they  had  properly  given  expression  to  the 
desires  of  their  electors.  But  they  were  now  face 
to  face  with  new  and  far  different  problems.  By 
the  accident  of  circumstance,  the  clash  at  arms  at 
Lexington  and  Concord,  duties  and  reponsibilities 
were  thrust  upon  them  that  none  had  given  thought 
to  a  few  months  before.  And  in  undertaking  these 
new  activities,  the  Congress  had  no  precedent  to 
guide  it,  nor  any  instructions  even  from  its  con 
stituents  to  follow  as  before.  It  was,  therefore,  free 
and  untrammeled  so  long  as  it  kept  within  the 
bounds  of  popular  support. 

30 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING  ITSELF  31 

All  the  country  was  drifting  about  hopelessly, 
looking  for  some  pilot  to  show  the  way.  For  now 
that  the  controversy  had  been  pushed  to  the  break 
ing  point,  real  parties  were  forming.  Many  who 
were  willing  to  follow  so  long  as  peaceful  measures 
alone  were  resorted  to,  became  hearty  conservatives 
as  soon  as  they  saw  civil  war  imminent.  Others, 
seeing  the  consequences  of  the  denial  of  parliamen 
tary  authority  staring  them  in  the  face,  had  not  made 
up  their  minds  which  side  to  join.  These  two 
groups  formed  probably  a  majority  of  the  inhabit 
ants,  and  in  some  districts  of  New  York  and  Penn 
sylvania  were  greatly  in  preponderance.  But  their 
influence  was  weakened  since  they  lacked  not  only 
an  organization,  but  seemingly,  even  the  power  to 
organize,1  though  they  were  not  backward  in  keep 
ing  their  pens  busy  writing  pamphlets  and  taking 
active1  part  in  the  heated  discussions  in  the  gazettes. 
Consequently  the  well-organized  revolutionary  party, 
represented  for  America  at  large  by  the  Congress, 
controlled  affairs.  The  Congress,  therefore,  was 
compelled  to  assume  the  directing  hand  and  provide 
the  rule  of  conduct,  the  more  so  as  the  revolu 
tionary  organizations,  in  colony  after  colony,  were 
looking  to  it  for  advice  and  direction,  especially  in 
all  that  concerned  military  affairs.  This  dependence 
on  the  Congress  and  the  authority  it  derived  there- 

1  See  Van  Tyne,  Loyalists  in  Am.  Revolution,  85,  87. 


32  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

from,  carried  with  them  a  gradual  development  of 
a  spirit  of  subordination  to  its  will,  on  the  part  of 
those  controlling  the  revolutionary  movement.  The 
Congress  thus  grew,  from  an  impotent  body  with 
vague  powers  designed  at  first  to  prepare  petitions 
and  addresses,  into  one  having  practically  complete 
control  of  the  affairs  of  a  people  engaged  in  a  war 
of  revolution,  with  all  that  such  control  implies. 
Though  this  evolution  is  the  most  important  civil 
and  political  phenomenon  of  the  period,  it  was  a 
perfectly  natural  development,  since  the  leading 
spirits  and  ablest  men  were  in  Philadelphia,  and 
they  saw  to  it  that  the  new  power  assumed  its  au 
thority  with  caution  and  wielded  it  with  skill. 

For  the  understanding  of  the  events  of  the  next 
year  it  is  all-important  that  the  growth  of  the  power 
and  authority  of  the  Congress,  the  manner  of  their 
exercise,  and  the  method  of  enforcing  its  decisions 
upon  points  of  policy,  be  clearly  held  in  mind.  Ac 
tually  the  creature  of  the  colonies,  representing  the 
united  sentiment  of  them  all,  the  Congress  was  much 
stronger  than  any  one  colony.  It  stood  for  union 
and  was,  therefore,  compelled  to  pursue  every  meas 
ure  looking  to  the  tightening  of  the  chains.  By 
so  doing  and  by  frowning  upon  every  individual 
action  that  might  lead  to  disunion  and  consequent 
weakening  of  its  own  powers,  it  succeeded  in  ever 
strengthening  itself.  So  that  by  the  time  it  reached 


CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  33 

its  highest  point  of  authority  (July  4,  1776)  we 
have  unfolded  before  us  the  phenomenon  of  a  polit 
ically  organized  body,  the  creature  of  individual 
political  organizations,  deriving  all  its  strength  and 
sanction  from  them,  dependent  for  its  existence 
upon  their  good  will,  yet  with  no  limits  to  its  au 
thority  other  than  those  of  the  reason  and  good 
sense  of  its  members.  Gradually  it  procured  so 
much  power  as  to  be  able  to  dictate  to  the  colonies 
how  to  shape  their  own  administrative  organiza 
tions,  and  finally  was  able  to  advance  to  the  extreme 
point  of  declaring  them  independent  of  the  govern 
ment  that  had  always  controlled  them.  The  suc 
cessful  manner  in  which  this  was  consummated  is 
demonstrated  by  the  support  given  to  its  acts 
throughout  the  colonies.  In  all  this  the  Congress 
relied  on  and  fostered  the  democratic  elements  of 
which,  in  large  measure,  it  was  the  revolutionary 
outcome.  Without  so  doing  the  revolution  would 
never  have  attained  so  much  of  success  as  it  did 
before  outside  aid  was  called  upon.  It  suited  the 
purposes  of  those  who  fostered  the  revolution  to 
emphasize  the  natural  rights  to  which  they  believed 
themselves  entitled.  This  very  emphasis  aroused 
the  minds  of  "  the  multitude,"  (as  it  was  generally 
termed)  to  a  knowledge  that  they  too  had  rights 
which  had  been  denied  them  hitherto, — that  by  the 
restrictions  upon  the  franchise,  upon  representation, 
3 


34  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

and  by  other  means,  they  had  been  deprived  of  par 
ticipation  in  the  government.  It  required  many 
years  of  agitation  before  they  finally  came  into 
full  possession  of  their  own,  but  the  beginnings 
were  made  now.  The  Congress  saw  plainly  that 
if  it  was  to  rely  on  the  democracy  to  fight  its  bat 
tles  in  the  field,  the  democracy  must  be  shown 
certain  favors  in  return.  Only  the  first  moves 
had  been  made  toward  the  creation  of  a  con 
tinental  army,  when  the  Congress  pronounced  as  its 
policy  this  reliance  on  the  people  for  support.  In 
its  most  definite  form  it  was  embodied  in  the  advice 
given,  in  November  and  December,  1775,  to  the  col 
onies  of  New  Hampshire,  South  Carolina,  and  Vir 
ginia,  respecting  the  creation  of  new  forms  of  gov 
ernment.  In  each  instance  the  Congress  recom 
mends  the  calling  of  "  a  full  and  free  representation 
of  the  people,"1  to  establish  the  form  of  government 
by  which  they  are  to  be  controlled.  This  is  far  dif 
ferent  in  character  from  the  earlier  advice  given  to 
Massachusetts,2  when  she  was  simply  told  to  nullify 
the  act  abrogating  her  charter,  and  to  organize 
government  on  the  old  familiar  lines  "  until  a  gov 
ernor,  of  his  Majesty's  appointment,  will  consent  to 
govern  the  colony  according  to  its  charter."  The 
Congress  could  take  the  more  advanced  attitude  in 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  November  3,  5,  December  4,  1775. 

2  June  9,  1775,  ibid. 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  35 

the  later  instances  because  it  had  the  experience  of 
nearly  five  months  to  aid  it  in  outlining  a  policy,  and 
because  it  regarded  itself  as  the  chosen  agency  of 
the  people,  with  authority  derived  from  them  "  ac 
cording  to  the  purest  maxims  of  representation."1 
Moreover,  with  each  enlargement  of  the  powers 
of  the  Congress,  the  common  aim  of  a  firm  union 
was  more  nearly  consummated.  Every  increase  of 
the  continental  army,  every  act  enforcing  the  Asso 
ciation  or  regulating  trade,  every  issue  of  bills  of 
credit,  every  means  toward  getting  into  relations 
with  a  foreign  power,  in  short,  every  one  of  the 
countless  instances  by  which  it  extended  its  own 
authority  and  made  it  more  complex,  by  so  much 
increased  the  necessity  that  this  should  be  done  in 
such  manner  as  would  be  supported  throughout  the 
colonies,  and  consequently  strengthen  the  union. 
The  political  acumen  required  was  of  a  high  order, 
in  that  it  was  necessary  not  alone  to  conduct  the 
Congress  so  as  not  to  get  too  far  ahead  of  popu 
lar  opinion,  but  to  keep  a  guiding  hand  on  the 
course  of  events  in  the  colonies  as  well.  This 
was  done  through  correspondence  between  the  dele 
gates  and  their  constituents,  by  resolutions  of  the 
Congress,  and,  when  the  occasion  demanded,  by 
personal  visits  of  the  members  of  the  Congress.2 

1  Declaration  of  Congress,  December  6,  1775,  Journal. 

2  Notably  in  the  case  of  sending  a  committee  to  New  Jersey 
on  December  4,  1775.     See  below,  pp.  45-46. 


36  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

The  union  sentiment  was  greatly  fostered  by  one 
principle  in  the  conduct  of  affairs  which  the  Con 
gress  followed  out  with  consistent  purpose  to  the 
end.  This  was  never  to  perform  an  act  of  conse 
quence,  nor  issue  a  document  designed  to  influence 
the  popular  mind,  without  stating  the  causes  for  it. 
Statements  were  invariably  so  framed  as  to  put  the 
acts  of  Great  Britain  always  in  the  wrong,  and  to 
make  it  appear  plausible  that  the  course  pursued  by 
the  Congress  was  rendered  necessary  by  specified 
instances  of  British  aggression,  coercion,  or  infringe 
ment  of  what  were  believed  to  be  undoubted  rights, 
and  was  the  only  one  possible  under  the  circum 
stances.  Naturally  the  British  side  gained  nothing 
by  the  manner  in  which  it  was  stated  by  the  Con 
gress.  Amid  all  the  vacillation  that  characterized 
the  earliest  period  of  the  activity  of  the  Congress, 
that  is,  until  the  beginning  of  1776  (often  caused  by 
the  very  necessity  of  yielding  a  little  here  and  a  little 
there,  to  unite  the  wishes  of  individuals  and  localities 
in  order  that  the  larger  movement  might  not  be 
stayed),  this  is  one  point  of  policy  that  was  carried 
through  with  absolute  consistency.  Consequently, 
if  we  search  deeply  enough,  the  causal  origin  of 
every  important  resolution  or  series  of  resolutions 
affecting  the  continental  concerns  may  be  found  in 
some  previous  British  action.  By  carrying  out 
this  deep-laid  design,  confidence  was  inspired  in  the 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  3/ 

minds  of  the  supporters  of  the  Congress,  and  they 
were  made  to  believe  in  its  ability  and  rectitude. 

Inseparable  from  the  growth  of  the  authority  of 
the  Congress  and  the  resultant  strengthening  of  the 
union,  was  the  advance  toward  independence.  Be 
fore  November,  1775,  though  many  acts  had  been 
committed  that  assisted  in  making  the  separation 
inevitable,  the  Congress  can  hardly  be  considered  as 
working  consciously  to  bring  about  that  end.  There 
was  too  great  a  want  of  uniformity  of  design  in  its 
acts,  too  much  of  profession  of  loyalty  to  Great  Brit 
ain  and  denial  of  any  planning  for  independence,  side 
by  side  with  the  passage  of  resolutions  that  appear 
now  as  having  no  other  possible  ultimate  conclusion. 
But  this  was  due  to  the  large  conservative  element 
in  the  Congress,  which  held  the  small  radical  minor 
ity  strongly  in  check  and  forced  through  concessions. 
The  period  between  May  10  and  November  I,  1775, 
was  one,  therefore,  which  taxed  the  ingenuity  of  the 
members  of  the  Congress  to  the  utmost.  For  they 
had  to  steer  a  middle  course  between  the  desires 
of  the  small,  aggressive,  minority  body  of  radicals 
on  the  one  side,  and  those  of  the  large  number  of 
conservatives  on  the  other.  If  they  yielded  to  the 
former  they  were  in  danger  of  dashing  to  pieces  on 
the  rocks  of  civil  war,  if  to  the  latter  they  might 
be  stranded  on  the  shoals  of  indecision.  There 
is,  therefore,  at  this  time  no  evidence  of  a  conscious 


38  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

determination  to  achieve  independence,  though 
many  acts  were  adopted — notably  those  relating  to 
military  affairs — which  led  inevitably  in  that  direc 
tion.  The  conservatives  insisted  on  sending  an 
other  petition,  in  spite  of  the  failure  of  the  first. 
This  was  a  wise  move,  though  the  full  wisdom  of  it 
was  not  seen  even  by  many  of  its  promoters  and  op 
ponents.  If  the  conservatives  could,  at  the  price 
of  agreeing  to  send  another  petition,  be  got  to 
acquiesce  in  all  the  other  measures  of  the  Con 
gress,  many  of  them  warlike  in  the  extreme  and 
casting  reflection  upon  all  their  professions  of 
loyalty  and  allegiance  to  the  crown,  the  cost  was  not 
too  great  to  pay.  If  the  petition  failed,  as  the  rad 
icals  all  believed  it  must,  and  was  therefore  use 
less,  it  was  good  policy  none  the  less;  for  it  put 
the  Congress  in  position  to  say  that  it  had  left  no 
stone  unturned  to  bring  about  a  peaceful  solution 
of  the  controversy,  and  that  no  other  course  was 
open  except  war,  for  every  overture  had  been  re 
jected.  With  the  rejection  of  the  petition  in 
hand  the  Congress  was  far  stronger  before  the 
country  than  if  none  had  been  sent  and  no  oppor 
tunity  for  rejection  given. 

Having  agreed  to  send  the  petition,1  whatever  else 
was  done,  a  due  and  proper  period  had  to  be  given 
for  answer  to  be  made.  During  the  four  months 

ajuly  8,  1775. 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  39 

that  elapsed  before  the  reply  was  received,  a  waiting 
policy  had  to  be  pursued,  and  the  conservatives  saw 
to  it  that  no  act  out  of  keeping  with  this  policy  was 
committed.  But  this  did  not  prevent  the  Congress 
from  fostering  the  union  sentiment  in  every  way 
possible.  The  most  important  opportunity  for  doing 
this  arose  out  of  the  indecision  of  the  colonies  as 
to  the  course  to  pursue  respecting  Lord  North's 
plan  of  conciliation  and  concession.1  Three  col- 
•onies2  had  transmitted  the  plan  to  the  Congress  with 
the  request  for  directions  as  to  their  conduct  re 
specting  it,  while  the  remainder  waited,  before  tak 
ing  any  action,  to  hear  what  the  Congress  would 
advise.  The  reply  of  the  Congress,  the  last  impor 
tant  act  before  taking  a  recess  during  the  month  of 
September,  was  an  unequivocal  rejection,  and, 
though  it  contained  no  new  thought,  was  a  forcible 
statement  in  denunciation  of  submission  to  parlia 
mentary  taxation  and  parliamentary  legislation.  The 
latter  point  was  now  carried  to  its  farthermost  ex 
treme,  and  by  implication,  England's  right  even 
to  control  the  commerce  of  the  colonies  upon  the 
terms  stated  by  the  first  Congress,  and  repeated  in 
the  address  to  the  inhabitants  of  Great  Britain, 
agreed  to  on  the  same  day  as  the  petition  to  the 

1  February  20-27,  1775-    Lord  North's  motion  is  to  be  found 
in  Journal  of  Congress,  July  31,  1775. 

2  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia. 


4O  THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

King,  was  renounced.1  No  colony  gave  the  resolu 
tion  further  consideration  so  that  this  attempt  to 
break  up  the  union  had  no  other  result  than  to 
strengthen  it. 

The  adjournment  for  the  month  of  August  served 
the  double  purpose  of  enabling  the  members  to  re 
turn  among  their  constituents,  and  so  keep  in 
touch  with  them,  and  of  consuming  time  while  wait 
ing  for  the  reply  to  the  petition  to  arrive.  When 
they  reconvened  in  September2  no  answer  had  yet 
come,  and  the  policy,  therefore,  had  still  to  be  a 
waiting  one.  The  next  six  weeks  are  mainly  de 
voted  to  a  consideration  of  the  commerce  and  trade 
of  the  colonies,  and  to  military  affairs,  which  still 
have  a  defensive  cast.  The  non-exportation  part 
of  the  Association  went  into  effect  on  September  10. 
Appeals  to  the  Congress  from  various  quarters 
necessitated  some  interpretation  of  its  provisions.8 
No  colony  would  act  on  its  own  responsibility.  On 
no  other  point,  except  in  directing  military  affairs, 
was  there  such  general  acquiescense  in  allowing  the 
Congress  a  full  and  free  hand.  There  was  need, 
too,  that  the  Congress  should  express  its  opinion  of 

^uly  8,  1775. 

2  September  5,  1775. 

8  See  Journal  of  Congress,  September  15,  27,  1775;  John 
Adams'  Works,  II,  451  ;  Diary  of  Richard  Smith,  Am.  Hist. 
Rev.,  I,  290,  292. 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  4! 

the  Restraining  Acts1  of  March  and  April,  since 
four  colonies2  were  favored  as  against  the  rest,  and 
if  they  took  advantage  of  their  exception,  they  could 
break  up  the  union.  Though  no  disposition  to  do  so 
was  shown,  this  was  a  matter  of  continental  concern 
and  a  word  from  the  Congress  was  awaited.  Some 
of  the  radicals  would  have  had  the  ports  opened 
to  trade  with  the  world  at  large.3  But  as  such  a 
proposition  meant  virtual  independence  it  found  few 
followers.  The  debate  had  about  run  its  course 
when  the  announcement  was  received,  on  the  last 
day  of  October,  that  not  only  had  the  petition  been 
given  no  consideration,  but  that  on  the  very  day 
when  the  King  was  to  have  received  it,  he  had  is 
sued  a  proclamation  declaring  the  colonists  in  re 
bellion.  The  first  reply  made  by  the  Congress  was 
issued  the  next  day.  All  exportation  without  the 
permission  or  order  of  the  Congress  was  to  be 
stopped  until  the  first  of  the  following  March ;  even 
the  export  of  rice,  allowed  by  the  provisions  of  the 
Association  to  be  shipped  to  Great  Britain,  was  pro 
hibited.  Further,  the  four  colonies  exempted  from 
the  provisions  of  the  Restraining  Acts  were  told  not 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived 

1  The  provisions  of  these  acts  are  given  in  Chapter  XI. 

2  New  York,  Delaware,  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia. 

3  John  Adams'  Works,  II,  451-484. 


42  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

therefrom  and  were  thanked  for  not  having  pre 
viously  done  so.1 

Dating  from  November  first,  we  can  discern  the 
beginning  of  the  conscious  movement  having  inde 
pendence  as  its  aim.  There  was  from  that  time 
no  further  talk  of  petitioning,  but  there  were  many 
expressions  within  the  Congress  and  many  more 
without  that  no  other  course  was  left,  than  either 
to  work  for  independence,  or  to  adopt  the  impossible 
alternative  of  absolute  submission  and  renunciation 
of  all  that  had  been  striven  for  during  the  past 
fourteen  years.  But  in  proceeding  along  the  road 
toward  independence  as  much  caution  and  skill  were 
required  as  previously  had  been  shown  in  steering 
the  middle  course.  It  was  necessary  never  to  go 
a  step  further  than  popular  opinion  could  be  made 
to  take,  and  on  this  account  many  concessions  had 
to  be  made  to  the  large  body  of  conservatives 
within  and  without  the  Congress.  In  the  latter, 
though  their  numbers  from  now  on  began  to  de 
crease,  they  still  held  the  upper  hand  and  continued 
to  for  months  to  come. 

The  policy  of  always  putting  Great  Britain  in  the 
wrong  and  making  the  acts  of  the  Congress  appear 
as  still  defensive  or  retaliatory  had  to  be  continued. 
Though  the  Congress  was  unable  to  go  forward  with 
the  rapidity  that  would  have  pleased  the  radicals,  no 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  November  i,  1775. 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  43 

backward  step  was  taken.  For  the  next  month  gave 
the  opportunities  for  stirring  up  the  democracy 
already  adverted  to,1  which  were  eagerly  seized  upon 
as  likely  to  aid  the  forward  movement.  The  radicals 
were  for  going  much  further.2  They  would  have 
taken  advantage  of  the  application  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  for  advice  respecting  establishing  her  govern 
ment,  to  recommend  a  general  abolition  of  the  old 
forms.  Fortunately  for  the  success  of  the  revolu 
tionary  movement  they  were  not  sufficiently  strong 
to  make  their  opinions  prevail,  for  the  Congress  as  a 
body  saw  that  the  ground  was  not  yet  prepared  for 
it  to  act  except  when  appealed  to  directly.  But  it 
was  certainly  due  to  the  radicals,  and  probably  as  a 
concession  to  them,  that  the  advice  given  during  the 
months  of  November  and  December  had  so  markedly 
a  democratic  character. 

Even  so  much  of  progress  caused  a  reaction  in 
the  colonies  where  the  conservative  spirit  had  the 
upper  hand.  The  numerous  radical  expressions, 
favoring  independence  and  the  adoption  of  measures 
leading  thereto,  which  now  (November  to  Decem 
ber)  began  to  appear  in  the  public  prints,  caused  the 
conservatives  who  still  believed  there  might  be  some 
other  way  out,  to  attempt  to  frustrate  the  designs  of 
the  radicals.  The  Pennsylvania  conservatives,  with 

1  See  pp.  33-35. 

2  John  Adams'  Works,  III,  19,  20. 


44  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

Dickinson  at  their  head,  were  actively  supporting 
the  moderate  attitude,  all  the  more  because  of  the 
sympathies  with  the  democracy  displayed  by  the 
Congress.  The  salvation  of  the  conservative  party 
in  Pennsylvania  depended  upon  keeping  the  people, 
"  the  multitude,"  from  getting  control  of  the  gov 
ernment  there.  The  old-line  conservatives  believed 
in  all  sincerity  that  if  the  people  were  allowed  to 
come  into  power,  nothing  short  of  anarchy  would  be 
the  outcome.  Dickinson  and  his  followers,  control 
ling  Pennsylvania  politics,  advocated  united  action 
by  the  colonies,  and  even  fighting  for  their  rights,  but 
did  not  favor  an  aggressive  policy.  Great  as  was  his 
interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  continent,  they  were  to 
him  secondary  to  the  necessity  for  preserving  the 
management  of  Pennsylvania  politics  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  had  always  governed.  So  much  of  a  de 
sire  for  independence  as  was  in  existence  in  his 
colony  at  this  time  was  confined,  with  a  few  excep 
tions,  to  the  radicals,  who  had  little  share  in  political 
affairs.  If  they  should  acquire  control,  they  would 
not  only  overturn  the  whole  fabric  of  government, 
but,  by  sending  representatives  of  their  own  views 
to  the  Congress,  greatly  strengthen  the  independence 
party.  This  was  to  be  prevented  at  all  hazards,  and 
one  means  to  this  end  was  to  issue  new  instructions 
to  Pennsylvania's  delegates  in  the  Congress  which 
would  keep  them  from  taking  part  in  any  of  the 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  45 

schemes  of  the  radicals,  especially  such  as  would 
change  the  existing  form  of  the  Pennsylvania  gov 
ernment.1  It  was  fully  appreciated,  too,  that  as 
Pennsylvania  led,  the  other  middle  colonies  where 
the  conservatives  were  in  control,  would  follow,  so 
that  within  two  months  after  Pennsylvania's2  in 
structions  against  independence  were  passed,  similar 
instructions  were  issued  to  their  delegates  by  the 
governing  organizations  of  New  Jersey,  New  York, 
Delaware  and  Maryland.  One  element  aiding  in  the 
establishment  of  this  attitude,  was  the  hope  of  the 
leaders  in  these  colonies  that  despite  the  rejection  of 
the  petition  and  the  King's  proclamation  of  rebellion, 
some  pressure  might  still  be  brought  to  bear  on 
Parliament  to  reverse  its  position.  Though  the  like 
lihood  was  not  great  that  such  a  change  of  purpose 
would  prevail,  the  conservatives  were  for  giving  a 
chance  of  embracing  it  to  the  new  Parliament,  that 
was  to  assemble  in  October. 

But  the  Congress,  compelled  to  listen  to  instruc 
tions  against  independence,  would  not  sit  idly  by, 
if  a  colony  brought  up  again  the  idea  of  sending  a 

1  See    Lincoln,   Revolutionary    Movement    in    Pennsylvania, 
Chap.  XII ;  Reed's  Life  and  Corr.  of  Joseph  Reed,  and  Stille's 
Dickinson. 

2  Pennsylvania's  instructions  were  issued  on  November  9 ; 
New  Jersey's,   November  28 ;   New  York's  on  December   14, 
1775,  and  Maryland's,  January  n,  1776,  though  the  committee 
to  prepare  the  last  was  appointed  on  December  9,  1775. 


46  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

petition  to  the  King.  This  was  no  time  for  further 
petitioning,  and  no  such  proposition  had  been  made 
in  the  Congress  since  the  last  had  proved  so  barren 
of  results.  Therefore,  when  New  Jersey  took  up 
the  matter,  there  was  serious  business.  By  force  of 
circumstances  it  had  been  necessary  to  keep  hands 
off  when  New  York  sent  her  petition  some  months 
back,  and  for  her  pains  was  rewarded  by  being  ex 
empted  from  the  effects  of  the  Restraining  Acts. 
But  now  the  face  of  things  had  changed  and  a  solid 
front  must  be  presented  at  all  costs.  A  resolution 
was  passed  expressing  the  view  that  it  would  be 
"  dangerous  to  the  liberties  and  welfare  of  America, 
if  any  colony  should  separately  petition  the  King  or 
either  house  of  parliament,"1  and  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  confer  with  New  Jersey  on  the  subject. 
Care  was  taken  to  put  Dickinson,  the  author  of  the 
last  petition  of  the  Congress,  at  its  head.  His  com 
panions  were  Wythe  and  Jay,  a  radical  and  a  con 
servative,  and  their  efforts  were  so  successful  as 
to  cause  New  Jersey  to  abandon  all  thought  of  send 
ing  a  new  petition.  If  New  Jersey  had  not  yielded 
so  promptly  to  this  gentle  persuasion,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  stronger  measures,  even  to  the  employ 
ment  of  force,  would  have  been  resorted  to  to  over 
throw  its  government.2 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  December  4,  1775. 
a  New  Jersey   Archives,    ist    Series,    X,   677-678,   689-691; 
Force,  4th,  III,  1871-1874, 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING   ITSELF  4? 

Almost  a  month  had  passed  since  the  Congress 
had  obtained  official  information  of  the  failure  of  its 
petition,  and  no  statement  had  been  issued  in  reply. 
It  was  time,  therefore,  to  speak  out,  the  more  so 
as  Lord  Howe  had  also  published  a  proclamation 
prohibiting  the  people  of  Boston  from  leaving  the 
town  without  permission.  The  answer  to  these  was 
made  on  December  6,  in  a  proclamation  sent  forth 
in  the  name  of  "  the  delegates  of  the  thirteen  United 
Colonies  of  North  America,"  and  the  most  defiant 
of  all  the  documents  so  far  emanating  from  the  Con 
gress.  All  allegiance  to  Parliament  is  specifically 
disavowed,  even  that  to  the  King  is  brought  into 
question  somewhat  in  the  argument.  And  in  reply 
to  that  part  of  the  King's  proclamation  announcing 
the  punishment  to  be  meted  out  to  those  caught  aid 
ing  and  abetting  the  rebellion,  the  Congress  boldly 
announces  that  it  will  retaliate  in  kind  and  degree. 
All  this  is  done  "  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the 
United  Colonies,  and  by  authority,  according  to  the 
purest  maxims  of  representation."  No  convention 
or  committee  is  to  intervene  to  aid  in  carrying  out 
this  threat,  Congress  itself  assumes  the  burden  and 
will  bear  it.  This  is  the  highest  point  of  authority 
which  the  Congress  had  yet  reached,  but,  since  in 
the  last  resort  military  force  would  be  invoked,  it 
could  thus  speak  out  without  exciting  the  jealousy 
of  any  colony. 


48  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

The  last  two  months  of  the  year  1775  saw  many 
acts  committed  by  the  Congress  that  occasioned  an 
increase  of  its  power,  and  at  the  same  time  strength 
ened  the  union  and  made  for  independence.  The 
beginnings  were  made  in  three  points  of  sovereign 
policy  that  ultimately  had  far  reaching  consequences. 
These  were  the  initial  attempts  at  suppressing  the 
loyalist  sympathizers ;  the  first  steps  toward  inviting 
foreign  intervention;  and  those  toward  laying  the 
foundations  of  a  continental  navy.1  Along  with 
these  is  to  be  noticed  a  far  stiffer  tone  in  military 
affairs,  and  less  talk  of  acting  only  on  the  defensive, 
the  while  actions  were  belying  professions.  All 
these  acts  paved  the  way  for  the  more  vigorous  pol 
icy  that  was  to  be  ushered  in  with  the  New  Year. 
After  November  there  begins  a  gradual  weakening 
of  the  power  of  the  conservatives,  and  we  see  devel 
oping  the  conscious  aim  toward  independence.  The 
end  of  the  waiting  policy  that  had  characterized  the 
proceedings  of  the  previous  five  months  was  at  hand. 
For  two  months  at  least  the  advance  is  not  rapid, 
but  after  that  it  gets  full  headway  and  goes  forward 
with  a  rush  that  nothing  can  stop.  Every  act  that 
can  foster  it  is  committed,  and  every  opposition  to 
it  is  borne  down,  by  gentle  means  if  possible,  by  force 
if  necessary.  By  each  step  the  authority  of  the 

1  The  issuance  of  bills  of  credit  may  also  be  regarded  as 
tending  in  this  direction. 


THE   CONGRESS   FINDING  ITSELF  49 

Congress  is  increased,  the  necessity  for  united  action 
made  more  urgent,  and  the  sentiment  for  declaring 
independence  so  aroused,  that  he  who  is  not  for  it 
is  made  to  appear  as  an  enemy  of  his  country. 


CHAPTER   III 

THE  IDEA  OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES  ROOT,  AND 
THE  CONGRESS  PREVAILS 

At  the  opening  of  the  most  notable  year  in  Ameri 
can  history,  though  the  radical  advocates  of  an  inde 
pendence  policy  had  made  much  progress  in  per 
fecting  the  revolutionary  organization,  they  had  not 
succeeded  in  winning  to  their  support  any  consid 
erable  numbers  in  the  Congress.  But  a  scant  third 
of  the  thirty-five  or  forty  men,  controlling  the 
political  destinies  of  the  colonies,  were  as  yet  open 
advocates  of  measures  leading  to  a  definitive  break 
with  the  home  government.  So  strong  was  the 
conservative  spirit  still  prevailing  that  of  them  all 
one  colony  alone,  Virginia,  could  at  a  roll  call  muster 
a  majority  of  her  delegates  on  the  side  of  an  avowal 
of  independence.1  The  conservative  majority,  still 
favored  a  waiting  policy,  with  military  movements 
mainly  of  defensive  character ;  a  course  rendered  the 
more  necessary  by  the  failure  of  several  colonies2 
to  keep  delegations  in  Congress  sufficiently  large 
to  enable  them  to  cast  a  vote.  But  the  current  be- 

1  See  pp.  84-85. 

2  North  Carolina  and  Georgia  were  not  represented  at  this 
time,  nor  South  Carolina  for  a  brief  period  a  little  later  on. 

50 


THE  IDEA  OF  INDEPENDENCE  TAKES  ROOT       $1 

gan  to  set  more  strongly  in  the  direction  of  inde 
pendence  as  each  day  passed.  The  public  prints 
throughout  the  colonies  were  beginning  to  contain, 
more  and  more,  arguments  favoring  it,  while  in 
their  private  correspondence  the  leaders  of  thought, 
who  were  also  prolific  contributors  to  the  gazettes, 
were  more  outspoken  than  they  dared  be  in  public. 
At  the  same  time,  there  is  discernible  a  constant 
increase  in  the  power  and  authority  of  the  Congress, 
made  necessary  by  the  more  offensive  character 
which  the  war  gradually  assumed,  and  the  resultant 
change  in  the  nature  of  the  struggle.  The  Con 
gress  came  to  be  accepted  generally  as  the  directing 
head  of  affairs,  "  the  supreme  superintending 
power,"1  and  each  extension  of  jurisdiction  was  so 
skilfully  managed  as  to  meet  with  welcome  as  the 
logical  outcome  of  events. 

The  time  was  ready  for  some  event  that  would 
give  impetus  to  the  thought  that  independence  was 
inevitable,  and,  by  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  Con 
gress,  give  the  opportunity  to  direct  affairs  with  the 
purpose  of  achieving  independence  in  mind,  to  be 
carried  through  by  the  constant  extension  of  its  own 
authority.  To  the  good  fortune  of  the  revolutionary 
movement,  the  uprising  in  America  had  led  the 
King  to  call  Parliament  to  meet  on  October  26,  1775, 
to  consider  the  situation.  In  his  brief  speech  on 

1  Rhode  Island  Col.  Records,  VII,  448-449. 


52  THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

opening  the  session  he  left  no  doubt  as  to  the  force 
of  his  determination.  The  colonies  were  in  rebel 
lion,  he  declared,  and  were  conspiring,  in  spite  of 
their  outspoken  protests  to  the  contrary,  to  establish 
an  independent  government.  To  prevent  this  all 
the  resources  of  the  British  empire  would  be  drawn 
on  if  necessary,  and  as  a  first  step  the  army  and  navy 
had  been  increased.  Also  "  most  friendly  offers  of 
foreign  assistance "  had  been  received,  and  his 
Electoral  troops  had  been  sent  to  the  garrisons 
of  Gibraltar  and  Port  Mahon,  in  order  to  free  the 
British  troops  of  these  garrisons  for  service  else 
where.  In  closing  he  made  reference  to  the  inten 
tion  to  give  power  to  agents  on  the  spot,  to  grant 
pardons  and  to  receive  the  submission  of  such 
provinces  and  colonies  as  were  disposed  to  return 
to  their  allegiance.1  Though  rumors  were  current 
in  America  before  the  year  1775  was  out,  that  a 
speech  of  this  nature  had  been  delivered  by  the 
King,  the  speech  itself  did  not  reach  Boston  until 
the  fourth  of  January,  and  Philadelphia  until  three 
days  later.  On  the  eighth  it  was  known  by  every 
man  in  the  Congress,  as  also  that  large  reinforce 
ments  to  the  British  army  had  arrived,  and  that 
Norfolk  had  been  destroyed  by  Lord  Dunmore. 
On  the  next  day  Paine's  Common  S'ense  made  its 
appearance. 

1  Force,  4th,  VI,  i. 


THE   IDEA  OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES   ROOT        53 

Such  a  favorable  concurrence  of  historical  acci 
dents  was  of  inestimable  value  to  the  radical  side. 
The  King's  speech  and  the  burning  of  Norfolk  were 
welcomed  as  grist  for  their  mill,  for  which  Common 
Sense  furnished  the  much  needed  propelling  force. 
No  arguments  from  the  leaders  were  so  convincing, 
as  the  sight  of  a  substantial  town  in  ashes,  the  news 
that  the  British  redcoats  would  overrun  the  land, 
and  that  a  British  navy  would  invest  it  from  the 
sea.  But  even  these,  in  view  of  the  King's  proposal 
to  send  agents  to  America  with  power  to  act,  might 
have  failed  to  stir  up  the  dissatisfied  elements,  if 
Common  Sense  had  not  made  its  appearance.  It  is 
no  longer  necessary  to  enter  into  details  respecting 
its  vast  influence.  All  scholars  are  at  one  in  giving 
this  unusual  pamphlet  credit  for  a  large  share  in  the 
popularization  of  the  newly  arisen  ideas  of  inde 
pendence,  and,  in  a  measure,  for  shaping  the  whole 
movement.  But  its  influence  would  not  have  been 
so  great  had  it  not  been  published  at  so  opportune 
a  time. 

And  the  thought  therefore  arises,  is  it  likely  that 
such  a  pamphlet,  which  was  a  considerable  time  in 
preparation,  and  with  whose  author  many  of  the 
men  of  the  Congress  were  on  terms  of  familiar  rela 
tion,  was  sent  out  on  its  message  at  this  precise  time 
by  grace  of  providential  dispensation?  We  know 
well  that  the  men  who  were  controlling  the  revolu- 


54  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

tionary  movement  were  far-seeing  statesmen,  many 
of  them,  unaccustomed  and  unwilling  to  trust  vital 
affairs  to  the  uncertain  favors  of  fortune.  They 
were  naturally  keen  to  take  advantage  of  every 
means  that  might  aid  them,  for  their  lives  and  for 
tunes  were  staked  with  their  reputations.  So  far, 
on  the  part  of  the  Congress  in  its  official  documents, 
there  had  been  a  distinct  disavowal  of  any  purposed 
striving  for  independence,  though  its  acts  were 
hardly  always  in  keeping  with  its  avowals.  The 
conservatives,  still  in  control,  saw  to  it  that  no  other 
policy  was  pursued.  But  in  the  aggressive  minority, 
among  whom  Franklin  was  an  active  spirit,  were 
those  who  were  working  to  influence  public  opinion 
in  the  direction  of  independence,  thereby  aiming  to 
react  on  the  Congress  itself.  For  it  was  perfectly 
understood  that,  though  the  Congress  should  be  al 
ways  kept  a  little  ahead  of  the  trend  of  the  popular 
ideas,  and  outline  the  course  of  action,  it  must  do 
this  in  so  subtle  a  manner  as  never  to  appear  actu 
ally  to  lead,  merely  to  direct.  Since  the  early  part 
of  November  the  more  radical  spirits  had  decided 
that  independence  was  the  goal  to  strive  for.  Par 
ticularly  with  the  view  of  breaking  up  the  old  con 
servative  party  in  Pennsylvania,  it  is  altogether 
probable  that  Franklin,  with  the  connivance  of 
others  of  his  way  of  thinking,  made  preparation  to 
further  their  side  of  the  cause  by  having  a  pamphlet 


THE  IDEA  OF  INDEPENDENCE  TAKES  ROOT        55 

written  which  could  be  used  to  counteract  the  effects 
of  the  King's  speech,  or  any  measures  that  Parlia 
ment  might  adopt,  in  the  unlikely  event  that  they 
would  be  conciliatory,  and  to  fan  the  flame  of  dis 
content  if  they  were  of  the  character  they  proved 
to  be.  The  date  of  the  meeting  of  Parliament  was 
well  known  in  America,  as  also  the  fact  that  it  took 
about  two  months  for  information  to  reach  from 
the  other  side.  Paine  was  accordingly  employed, 
in  the  autumn  of  1775,  to  write  a  pamphlet  which 
might  be  issued  at  nearly  the  same  time  as  the  first 
news  of  the  proceedings  in  Parliament  was  made 
known,  and  thereby  aid  those  who  were  now  the 
avowed  advocates  of  an  independence  policy,  and 
who  still  had  the  inertia  of  the  conservatives  to 
overcome.  The  preparation  of  Common  Sense  was 
conceived  with  deliberation,  and  for  a  definite  object. 
It  would  have  appeared  about  this  time  had  there 
been  no  speech  from  the  King.  But  the  large  meas 
ure  of  its  success,  was  due  to  the  careful  foresight 
that  caused  its  preparation  for  publication  at  the 
psychological  moment  best  calculated  to  give  it  cur 
rency,  and  render  it  of  most  effect  in  shaping 
opinion.1 

Its    appearance,    too,    was    intimately    associated 
with  the  contest  going  on  in  Pennsylvania,  in  whose 

1  For  the  details  respecting  the  negotiations  with  Paine  see 
Conway's  Life  of  Paine. 


56  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

affairs  the  Congress  found  opportunity  to  take  ever 
greater  and  greater  part.  The  radicals  by  reason  of 
the  share  they  were  having  in  raising  troops,  were 
gaining  largely  in  power  though  still  unable  to  direct 
affairs.  Franklin  had  allied  himself  with  them,  and 
was  a  powerful  factor  on  their  side.  They  were 
now  making  such  rapid  strides  as  to  be  held  in  check 
with  ever  increasing  difficulty.  Unquestionably, 
because  of  his  desire  to  influence  opinion  in  Penn 
sylvania  in  favor  of  the  moderates,  James  Wilson, 
on  the  very  day  that  Common  Sense  appeared,  made 
his  motion  that  the  Congress  issue  an  address  in 
reply  to  the  King's  speech,  wherein  denial  should 
be  made  that  the  colonies  were  aiming  at  independ 
ence,  and  should  "  declare  to  their  constituents  and 
the  World  their  present  intentions  respecting  an 
Independency."1  His  motion,  though  strongly  sup 
ported,  was  under  the  rules  postponed,  and  another 
day  assigned  for  its  consideration.  When  taken  up 
again  on  the  twenty-fourth,  it  was  passed,  and  a 
conservative  committee2  was  selected  to  prepare  the 

1  Diary  of  Richard  Smith,  January  9,  1776,  American  Hist. 
Rev.,  I,  No.  2,  307.     For  a  lucid  account  of  the  complex  po 
litical   struggle   in    Pennsylvania,   see   Lincoln's    The   Revolu 
tionary  Movement  in  Pennsylvania. 

2  The   committee   consisted  of   Dickinson,   Wilson,   Hooper, 
Duane,  and  Alexander.    The  Address  as  reported  is  among  the 
Papers  of  the  Continental  Congress,  and  is  entirely  in  Wil 
son's  handwriting.     It  has  been  printed  in  Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  I, 
684-696. 


THE   IDEA  OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES  ROOT        57 

address.  And,  as  if  wishing  to  make  display  of  the 
ultimate  futility  of  such  procedure,  its  opponents 
were  on  the  very  same  day  sufficiently  powerful  to 
have  a  committee  appointed  to  consider  the  equally 
important  matter  of  the  propriety  of  establishing  a 
war  office.  Three  weeks  passed  before  Wilson  was 
ready  with  his  address,  which  Richard  Smith  de 
scribes  as  "  very  long,  badly  written,  and  full  against 
Independency." x 

But  in  these  three  weeks  events  had  moved 
rapidly,  and  the  Congress  was  now  in  no  mood  to 
listen  to,  much  less  adopt  and  issue  such  a  document 
as  expressing  its  attitude.  The  military  measures 
made  necessary  by  the  fall  of  Quebec  and  the  death 
of  Montgomery;  the  general  quickening  of  mind 
and  act  that  they  had  brought  about ;  the  resolutions 
adopted  to  suppress  Tories ;  the  rumors  that  foreign 
troops  were  to  be  engaged  by  Great  Britain  for 
service  in  America;  the  constantly  recurring  argu 
ments  in  the  gazettes  favoring  independence,  all 
combined  to  render  it  unlikely  that  the  Congress 
would  now  stop  to  issue  any  pronouncement  on  the 
subject  of  independence,  and  least  of  all  one  putting 
it  in  opposition  to  a  course  which  it  was  tacitly 
favoring  on  every  possible  occasion.  But  an  ele 
ment  aiding  in  the  defeat  of  Wilson's  proposal  that 
must  not  be  ignored,  was  the  arrival  of  two  new 

1  Diary,  February  13,  1776. 


58  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

delegations  from  New  England,  and  of  Chase  of 
Maryland.  Fresh  from  home  they  could  tell  of  the 
spirit  animating  the  people,  and  in  their  journeying 
to  the  Congress  had  the  opportunity  to  get  in  touch 
with  public  sentiment  from  Boston  to  Baltimore. 
Sherman,  Wolcott,  and  Huntington  of  Connecticut 
arrived  on  January  16,  Chase  about  February  3, 
and  John  Adams  and  Gerry  of  Massachusetts  on 
February  9.  The  last  two  together  with  Samuel 
Adams  now  formed  a  majority  of  the  Massachusetts 
delegation,  and  could  therefore  completely  control 
the  vote  of  that  colony.  As  the  Connecticut  dele 
gates  were  not  less  ardently  radical  in  their  views 
than  those  of  Massachusetts,  together  they  had  great 
weight  in  determining  the  course  of  events,  both 
by  argument  and  by  the  example  of  their  vote, 
winning  over  a  majority  of  the  colonies.  They 
opposed  all  measures  that  obstructed  independence, 
and  though  as  yet  unable  to  dominate  completely 
the  actions  of  the  Congress,  they  of  course  stood  in 
the  way  of  the  adoption  and  issuance  of  Wilson's 
proposed  address.  Able  support  was  received,  too, 
from  Franklin  and  Chase,  who,  though  bound  by 
instructions  against  voting  for  independence,  worked 
to  further  every  measure  that  might  bring  it  about. 
As  the  result  of  their  combined  activities  and  ex 
ertions,  the  address,  after  its  report  to  the  Congress, 
is  not  heard  of  again.  If  the  radicals  could  not  force 


THE   IDEA   OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES   ROOT        59 

the  Congress  to  advance,  at  least  they  could  prevent 
any  backward  step  from  being  taken.  And  the 
noticeable  stiffening  of  the  attitude  of  the  Congress, 
which  dates  from  this  period,  is  in  large  measure 
due  to  the  influence  exerted  by  these  two  new  dele 
gations,  whose  persistency  in  turn  brought  about 
a  gradual  accession  of  numbers  to  their  ranks. 
Both  the  Adamses  were  working  strenously  also, 
without  the  doors  of  the  Congress,  to  make  converts 
to  their  views.  Samuel  Adams  bent  his  energies 
upon  arousing  the  democracy  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
began  to  contribute  arguments  favoring  independ 
ence  to  the  Philadelphia  newspapers.  These  were 
much  needed,  particularly  in  Philadelphia,  where  in 
spite  of  the  presence  of  the  Congress  a  strong  con 
servative  element  still  held  predominance. 

A  further  insight  into  the  increasing  strength  of 
the  more  advanced  party  is  obtained,  from  a  view  of 
the  incidents  happening  about  the  same  time  and 
attending  the  oration  delivered  by  the  Reverend 
Doctor  William  Smith  on  the  occasion  of  the  public 
services,  held  by  order  of  the  Congress,  in  memory 
of  the  death  of  General  Montgomery.  Smith's  ora 
tion,  breathing  throughout  its  length  the  spirit  of 
loyalty  and  allegiance  to  the  King,  was  little  to  the 
liking  of  the  majority  of  the  Congress  who,  while 
not  seeing  their  way  clear  to  announcing  independ 
ence,  listened  with  scant  patience  to  a  preaching 


60  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

about  their  duty  as  loyal  subjects  of  King  George. 
Accordingly,  when  a  few  days  later  William  Living 
ston  moved  that  a  vote  of  thanks  be  extended  to 
Doctor  Smith  with  a  request  that  he  print  his  ora 
tion,  it  was  objected  to  because  the  "  Dr.  declared 
the  sentiments  of  the  Congress  to  continue  in  a 
Dependency  on  Great  Britain  which  Doctrine  the 
Congress  cannot  now  approve."1  To  every  one 
approving  Livingston's  proposition  two  voices  spoke 
against  it,  and  so  strong  was  the  opposition,  that  fore 
seeing  failure,  he  withdrew  the  motion.  The  main 
value  of  this  occurrence  lies  in  the  light  it  throws 
upon  the  attitude  of  the  Congress  as  a  body  toward 
independence.  The  leading  speakers  and  writers 
were  advocating  the  adoption  of  measures  leading  to 
it  at  every  opportunity,  and  so  unimportant  an  epi 
sode  as  the  introduction  of  Livingston's  motion,  was 
not  allowed  to  pass  before  Chase,  John  Adams, 
Wythe,  Edward  Rutledge,  Wolcott,  and  Sherman 
had  given  expression  to  their  views  against  it.  The 
nature  of  the  instructions  of  five  colonies  to  their 
delegates,  however,  acted  as  an  estoppel  upon  their 
assenting  to  any  open  avowal  in  favor  of  independ 
ence.  Until  they  were  withdrawn  or  revised,  these 
delegations  could  not  vote  for  any  measure  having 
independence  as  its  object.  But  this  did  not  prevent 
them  as  individuals  from  speaking  and  working 

1  Diary  of  Richard  Smith,  February  21,  1776. 


THE   IDEA   OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES   ROOT        6 1 

for  it,  so  long  as  they  halted  short  of  casting  the 
vote  of  their  colony  contrary  to  instructions. 

In  the  six  or  seven  weeks  that  intervened  between 

v 

the  arrival  of  the  King's  speech  and  the  two  occa 
sions  on  which  the  Congress  uttered  its  opposition 
to  taking  any  action  that  would  stand  in  the  way  of 
ultimate  independence,  Common  Sense  was  being 
disseminated  throughout  the  land,  ably  supported 
by  productions  of  lesser  distinction,  many  taking 
their  cue  from  it.  The  people  were  growing  fa 
miliar  gradually  with  the  thought  of  an  independ 
ent  government,  and  the  Congress,  marvelously  in 
touch  with  every  phase  of  this  development,  kept 
pace  with  it.  So  that  by  the  end  of  February,  the 
question  in  the  minds  of  many  of  those  in  the  Con 
gress  who  are  still  to  be  classed  as  conservatives, 
was  not  one  of  the  advisability  or  inadvisability  of 
independence,  but  of  the  means  and  measures  by 
which  it  should  be  brought  about;  of  the  prepara 
tions  that  should  be  made  in  advance  of  its  declara 
tion,  and  above  all  of  the  readiness  of  the  people  for 
it.  For  without  the  support  of  the  democracy  the 
whole  of  the  revolutionary  organizations  would 
collapse.  These,  it  is  true,  were  being  strengthened 
with  every  increase  in  the  continental  army,  but 
even  the  lengths  which  the  Congress  could  go  in 
adding  to  it,  depended  entirely  upon  the  extent  to 
which  the  populace  would  follow  in  enlisting  for 


62  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

the  armed  struggle.  The  Congress  had  thus  all  the 
while  to  feel  its  way  and,  by  keeping  in  careful 
touch  with  the  people,  to  know  how  far  it  might 
advance. 

Yet,  notwithstanding  the  many  arguments  that 
had  appeared  favoring  independence,  and  the  almost 
equally  frequent  advocacy  of  opening  the  ports  of 
the  country  to  trade  with  the  world,  as  a  preliminary 
step,  many  still  had  misgivings,  and  until  these 
were  overcome  any  too  radical  action  might  com 
pass  the  downfall  of  the  whole  movement.  Com 
bined  with  the  natural  disinclination  from  the  over 
turn  of  a  constitutional  authority  that  had  always 
been  recognized  in  some  form,  and  which,  even  the 
most  radical  admitted,  conferred  mutual  advantages 
of  no  mean  order,  was  that  other  deterring  element, 
of  aversion  at  the  thought  of  the  cost  at  which  inde 
pendence  of  England  might  be  procured.  Would 
not  after  all  more  be  lost  thereby  than  by  continuing 
the  attempt  at  obtaining  the  desired  reforms  within 
the  empire  ?  What  guarantees  could  be  offered  that 
they  would  have  more  liberty  under  a  new  order 
than  under  the  old?  Would  they  ever  be  able  to 
stand  alone  ?  Was  there  not  danger,  if  they  brought 
about  a  separation  from  England,  that  another 
power,  France,  the  traditional  enemy,  might  step  in 
and  take  advantage  of  their  weakness  for  her  own 
aggrandizement  ?  As  has  been  well  said,  "  so  strong 


THE   IDEA  OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES   ROOT       63 

was  the  love  for  the  old  country,  so  great  was  the 
pride  of  being  a  part  of  the  British  dominion,  and 
entitled  to  the  glories  of  her  history,  that  many 
shrank  from  an  explicit  recognition  and  declaration 
of  the  fact  that  the  colonies  were  indeed  independent 
States,  no  longer  a  part  of  their  old  country." 1 
Thoughts  such  as  these  coursed  through  the  minds 
of  many,  giving  them  pause,  and  were  as  often  the 
considerations  blocking  hasty  action  in  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina,  as  in  more  conservative  Pennsylva 
nia  and  New  York.  Numbers  were  unwilling  to 
take  the  final  leap  until  they  had  carefully  gone  over 
the  ground  on  which  they  would  alight,  and  were 
assured  that  it  was  not  sown  with  pitfalls. 

The  vague  mention  in  the  King's  speech,  of  his 
intention  to  send  to  America  agents  with  indefinite 
power  to  accommodate  the  differences,  and  this  too 
in  despite  of  the  not  uncertain  character  of  the  re 
mainder  of  the  speech,  fostered  markedly  this  re 
luctant  sentiment,  both  within  and  without  the 
Congress.  There  was  a  very  wide  diffusion  of  the 
idea  that  all  radical  measures  should  halt  until  the 
opportunity  was  given  to  learn  something  definite 
about  these  "  commissioners,"  as  they  were  very 
generally  called.2  The  discerning  Joseph  Reed 
could  not  fail  to  wonder  at  the  "  strange  reluctance 

1  McCrady,  Sotith  Carolina  in  the  Revolution,   175-176. 

2  Stevens'  Facsimiles,  890*. 


64  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

in  the  minds  of  many  to  cut  the  knot."  "  Though 
no  man  of  understanding  expects  any  good  from  the 
commissioners,  yet  they  are  for  waiting  to  hear  their 
proposals  before  they  declare  off."  This  was  par 
ticularly  the  case  in  Pennsylvania  "  and  to  the  south 
ward."1 

That  a  bill  embracing  the  clause  authorizing  the 
appointment  of  such  a  commission  was  under  con 
sideration  and  likely  to  pass,  was  known  in  America 
in  the  early  part  of  February.  Some  of  the  very 
persons  active  in  perfecting  the  revolutionary  or 
ganizations  were  influenced  by  the  possibilities  for 
reconciliation  that  might  lie  with  these  commission 
ers.  Wordy  discussions  respecting  their  aims  and 
their  powers  for  good  and  evil,  rilled  the  gazettes 
during  the  months  of  March  and  April.  One  of  the 
principal  arguments  hurled  against  waiting  to  hear 
the  propositions  that  they  might  have  to  make,  was 
that  they  would  be  similar  to  Lord  North's  con 
ciliatory  motion  of  the  year  before,  designed  merely 
to  divide  the  colonies  by  playing  off  one  against  the 
other.  The  correspondence  of  every  man  of  im 
portance  contains  some  reference  to  these  expected 
agents  of  conciliation,  and  they  are  all  in  agreement 
upon  their  effect  in  blocking  the  independence  move 
ment.  Washington  had  no  patience  with  the 
thought  of  waiting  for  them  and  considered  the  idea 

2  Reed's  Reed,  I,  163,  March  3,  1776. 


THE   IDEA   OF   INDEPENDENCE  TAKES   ROOT        65 

as  insulting  as  Lord  North's  motion.1  Reed  was 
more  in  fear  of  them  than  of  the  British  generals 
and  armies.  He  was  fearful  "  if  their  propositions 
are  plausible,  and  behaviour  artful,"  that  they  would 
"  divide  us."  "  There  is  so  much  suspicion  in  Con 
gress,"  he  informed  Washington,  "  and  so  much 
party  on  this  subject,  that  very  little  more  fuel  is 
required  to  kindle  the  flame."2  John  Adams  of 
course  placed  no  store  by  them,  "  a  messiah  that  will 
never  come,"  and  he  "  laughed,  .  .  .  scolded,  .  .  . 
grieved  and  .  .  .  rip'd  "  at  the  story  of  their  com 
ing,  and  stormed  against  what  he  termed  "  as  arrant 
an  illusion  as  ever  was  hatched  in  the  brain  of  an 
enthusiast,  a  politician,  or  a  maniac.'3  The  views  of 
the  more  conservative  members  of  the  Congress 
are  well  expressed  in  a  letter  of  Thomas  Stone, 
of  Maryland.  "  If  the  Commissioners  do  not  arrive 
shortly  and  conduct  themselves  with  great  candor 
and  uprightness,"  he  wrote  towards  the  end  of  April 
to  Jenifer,  "  to  effect  a  reconciliation,  a  separation 
will  most  undoubtedly  take  place."  He  wished  "  to 
conduct  affairs  so  that  a  just  &  honorable  reconcilia 
tion  should  take  place,  or  that  we  should  be  pretty 
unanimous  in  a  resolution  to  fight  it  out  for  Inde 
pendence.  .  .  ."4 

1  Reed's  Reed,  I,  170.  2  Ibid.,  I,  173. 

3  Letters  to  his  Wife,  I,  98. 

*  Journal  and  Corr.  Md.  Council  of  Safety,  383. 

5 


66  THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Anxiously  on  the  lookout  for  any  sign  that  might 
indicate  a  show  of  a  conciliatory  spirit  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain,  all  those  not  already  committed  to 
independence  pinned  their  hopes  to  these  commis 
sioners.  But  as  days  and  weeks  went  by  and  their 
arrival  was  delayed,  and  rumors  about  them  still 
remained  indefinite  and  conflicting,  even  those  most 
sanguine  in  the  expectation  of  the  good  they  would 
accomplish  gradually  lost  confidence,  and  listened 
to  the  persuasive  oratory  of  those  who  placed  no 
trust  in  either  the  commissioners  or  their  mission. 
After  the  momentous  month  of  March  those  who 
still  had  faith  in  commissioners  were  inconsiderable 
in  numbers  and  devoid  of  influence.  After  the  sixth 
of  May,1  until  independence  was  already  more  than 
two  months  old,  no  attention  was  again  given  to 
them.  And  when  they  finally  arrived  and  negotia 
tions  with  them  were  begun,  the  unsatisfactory 
powers  with  which  they  were  clothed,  and  the  new 
spirit  infused  by  the  fact  that  independence  had  been 
declared,  rendered  the  negotiations  abortive. 

But  no  one  influence  was  of  such  effect  in  silenc 
ing  those  who  still  advocated  further  temporizing, 
and  in  convincing  them  that  longer  delay  on  the 
score  of  prospective  commissioners  was  useless,  as 
the  information  which  reached  America  early  in 
May,  that  Great  Britain  had  actually  engaged  for- 

1See  Journal  of  Congress,  May  6,  1776. 


THE   CONGRESS   PREVAILS  6/ 

eign  mercenaries,  then  on  their  way  over  sea,  to  fight 
her  battles  in  America.1  Up  till  now  there  had  been 
many  vague  rumors  floating  about  respecting  Eng 
land's  bid  for  Russians  and  Hessians  and  Hanove 
rians,  but  nothing  specific  had  been  learned.  The 
thought  that  England  would  be  forced  to  seek  out 
side  aid  was  of  early  origin,2  and  that  application 
had  been  made  to  Russia  with  no  success  was  known 
in  America  early  in  December.  In  January  informa 
tion  more  definite  was  obtained  from  the  reference 
to  offers  of  foreign  assistance  in  the  King's 
speech.  And  throughout  the  next  three  months 
the  pamphleteers  let  pass  no  opportunity  to  harp 
upon  this  additional  witness  to  England's  cruel 
intentions.  When,  therefore,  on  May  io,3  unques 
tioned  evidence  was  put  before  the  eyes  of  the 
Congress  that  12,000  Hessians  were  about  to  be 
sent  on  their  way,  nay,  were  even  then  at  sea,  the 
effect  in  vivifying  the  acts  of  the  Congress  was,  in 
its  intensity,  unequaled  by  any  occurrence  since  the 
arrival  of  the  King's  speech  four  months  before. 

In  order  to  preserve  a  continuity  of  narrative,  it 
has  been  necessary  to  run  a  little  ahead  and  pass 

1  The  story  of  the  British  negotiations  for  foreign  assistance 
has  been  often  told ;   the  details   can  be  found  in  Bancroft, 
Chapters  L  and  LVII. 

2  See  Force,  4th,  III,  819,  944,  1592. 

8  Journal  of  Congress.     Thos.  Cushing's  letter  conveying  the 
intelligence  is  to  be  found  in  Force,  4th,  V,  1184. 


68  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

by  some  affairs  in  which  the  constantly  increasing 
authority  of  the  Congress  is  displayed.  Of  these 
none  is  more  important  than  the  regulation  of  the 
colonial  commercial  relations.  From  the  day  that 
the  Articles  of  Association  went  into  effect,  the 
Congress  was  the  recognized  interpreter  for  the 
continent  in  all  affairs  having  to  do  with  its  foreign 
commerce.  The  view  was  general  that  this  affair 
was  the  Congress's ;  that  its  importance  to  the  wel 
fare  of  America  was  such  that  no  colony  could  act 
solely  on  its  own  responsibility;  that  all  must  con 
duct  themselves  in  this  respect  in  accordance  with 
the  rules  laid  down  by  the  general  body.  Because 
of  this  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Congress 
were  extended,  and  its  influence  came  to  be  felt  far 
and  wide.  Where  so  many  were  merchants  and 
traders,  when  such  numbers  found  the  advance  of 
their  interests,  even  their  means  of  existence,  de 
pendent  upon  a  word  from  the  Congress,  that  body 
found  it  could  keep  in  close  touch  with  the  economic 
life  of  the  continent,  by  the  control  of  its  trade. 
The  influence,  therefore,  was  reciprocal :  the  people, 
acting  through  the  assemblies,  the  conventions,  the 
committees  of  safety,  looked  to  the  Congress  for 
direction;  the  Congress  in  turn  gave  this  in  accord 
ance  with  the  best  light  it  had.  And  by  a  judicious 
permission  granted  now  here,  now  there,  to  break 
its  own  rules,  it  did  much  to  relieve  the  severity  of 


THE   CONGRESS   PREVAILS  69 

the  non-intercourse  agreement  and  to  establish  itself, 
not  as  a  mere  autocratic  dictator,  but  rather  as  the 
mild  ruler  acting  for  the  good  of  all,  upon  con 
sultation  with  all,  and  after  careful  consideration 
of  all  interests  involved.  When  the  day  came  finally 
for  declaring  the  ports  open  to  trade  with  all  parts 
of  the  world,1  the  Congress  with  one  stroke  abolished 
one  of  the  most  potent  means  it  had  established  for 
maintaining  dominance  in  continental  affairs.  By 
that  time  there  was  no  need  to  adopt  measures  de 
signed  merely  to  increase  its  power.  It  was  strong 
enough  to  do  practically  anything  it  willed,  short  of 
declaring  independence.  And  the  energies  of  all 
the  aggressive  members  were  henceforth  bent  upon 
forcing  through  independence  and  creating  a  mili 
tary  organization  that  could  support  it  when  de 
clared. 

The  ink  was  scarcely  dry  on  the  trade  compromise 
of  November  first2  when  exceptions  to  its  general 
provisions  were  found  to  be  necessary,  and  during 
the  next  four  months  these  increased  with  the  pass 
of  every  day.  But  however  much  these  infractions 
of  its  rules,  made  under  the  Congress's  own  au 
thority,  differed  in  character,  they  had  all  the  same 
end  in  view :  to  procure  arms,  ammunition,  and  other 
much-needed  warlike  supplies.3  Throughout,  the 

1  April  6,  1776. 

2  See  pp.  41-42. 

3  Journal  of  Congress,  November  22,  December  n,  14,  1775. 


7O  THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

attitude  of  the  Congress  is  far  bolder  than  is  as 
sumed  on  other  occasions,  and  a  dictatorial  tone  is 
adopted  repeatedly.  Though  it  left  the  enforcement 
of  its  resolutions  to  the  assemblies,  conventions,  and 
committees  of  safety,  the  Congress  fixed  the  terms 
under  which  individuals  might  be  permitted  to 
export;  the  amount  and  character  of  the  bonds  to 
be  entered  and  to  whom  to  be  given;  the  tonnage 
of  the  cargoes,  and  the  destination  of  the  vessels ;  the 
time  and  place  of  sailing,  and  the  period  within 
which,  as  evidence  of  good  faith,  return  must  be 
made  to  some  friendly  American  port.  Unless  these 
stipulations  were  complied  with  in  advance,  no  per 
mits  to  trade  were  issued.  And  the  Congress  was 
careful  to  state,  in  several  cases,  that  the  permission 
was  by  reason  of  particular  circumstances,  and  was 
not  to  be  "  drawn  into  precedent,"  thus  leaving  open 
the  door  for  refusal  when  it  deemed  such  action 
wise.1 

But  the  time  was  approaching  (March  i)  when, 
unless  some  other  action  was  taken,  the  ports  under 
the  terms  of  the  Articles  of  Association  would  be 
opened,  and  trade  with  Great  Britain  might  be  re 
sumed.  The  first  two  months  of  the  new  year  saw 
consideration  given  to  this  knotty  problem  when 
ever  the  other  multifarious  questions  which  so  en- 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  December  15,  1775,  January  27, 
February  2,  1776. 


THE   CONGRESS   PREVAILS  /I 

grossed  the  attention  of  the  Congress  allowed. 
Earnest  and  serious  discussion  of  the  question  be 
gan  in  the  middle  of  February.  By  that  time  the 
public  prints  were  teeming  with  all  manner  of  argu 
ments  favoring  and  opposing  independence.  And 
the  reiterated  advocacy  of  open  ports  and  free 
trade  with  all  parts  of  the  world,  now  in  conjunc 
tion  with  independence,  again  as  a  precedent  to  it, 
did  much  to  reassure  those  in  Congress  who  favored 
the  most  radical  measures.  It  was  well  understood 
that  open  ports  and  independence  were  inseparably 
connected,  but  the  conservatives  were  not  yet  ready 
for  this  step.  For  such  action  meant  the  nullifica 
tion  by  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  various  trade  laws 
enacted  by  the  Parliament  of  England. 

Towards  the  end  of  February,  it  was  seen  that  no 
conclusion  could  be  reached  before  the  first  of 
March,  and  inasmuch  as  merchants  in  Philadelphia 
and  elsewhere  were  preparing  to  make  the  most  of 
their  opportunities  beginning  with  March  first,  re 
course  was  had  to  another  temporary  expedient. 
On  the  twenty-sixth  of  February  it  was  resolved 
that  no  vessel  laden  for  Great  Britain,  Ireland,  or 
the  West  Indies  should  be  permitted  to  sail  without 
further  order  of  the  Congress,  and  the  committees 
of  inspection  and  observation  were  called  on  to  see 
to  the  enforcement  of  this  resolution.  The  very 
next  day  Robert  Morris  came  into  the  Congress 


72  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

bearing  in  his  hand  the  "  very  long  and  cruel "*  act 
prohibiting  trade  and  intercourse  with  America, 
which  had  been  signed  by  the  King  on  December 
22,  1775.  This  put  a  new  face  on  affairs.  The 
first  reply  was  issued  on  the  fourth  of  March,  when 
the  resolution  of  the  twenty-sixth  of  February  was 
rescinded,  and  trade  with  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
and  the  British  West  Indies  was  legalized,  if  en 
gaged  in  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  arms  and 
ammunition. 

These  were  the  days,  it  will  be  remembered,  when 
there  was  still  much  talk  of  commissioners  and  the 
good  that  might  flow  from  them.  But  when  the 
very  act  which  made  provision  for  their  appointment 
was  found  to  contain  clauses  which  authorized  the 
British  officers  and  seamen  to  share  in  the  prizes 
which  they  captured,  and  to  seize  and  force  to  serve 
under  the  British  flag  all  persons  found  on  board 
these  ships,  a  resentful  desire  to  retaliate  in  kind 
took  the  place  of  the  patient  waiting  upon  the  hoped- 
for  chance  of  reconciliation  with  Great  Britain. 
The  next  few  weeks  were  big  with  events  of  the 
greatest  importance  to  America.  The  radicals  were 
growing  more  and  more  aggressive,  and  as  each  suc 
cessive  act  was  disclosed,  showing  the  unconcilia- 
tory  spirit  of  Great  Britain,  the  conservatives  had 
the  ground  more  and  more  cut  from  under  them. 

1  Diary  of  Richard  Smith,  Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  I,  506. 


THE   CONGRESS   PREVAILS  73 

^ 

On  the  twenty-third  of  March  the  first  real  reply 
to  the  Prohibitory  Act  was  made  in  the  resolutions 
authorizing  the  equipment  of  privateers.  Almost 
immediately  the  details  providing  how  these  resolu 
tions  were  to  be  carried  into  effect  were  passed,  the 
Congress  in  every  particular  demonstrating  its  au 
thority  over  those  who  would  take  advantage  of  the 
privileges  now  allowed.  Within  a  few  days  there 
was  general  exultation  throughout  the  land  over  the 
evacuation  of  Boston,  and  almost  equal  dejection 
was  occasioned  by  the  news  that  foreign  troops 
were  being  hired  by  England  for  service  in  America. 
The  Congress,  taking  advantage  of  the  general  and 
widely  diffused  enthusiasm  aroused  by  Washing 
ton's  success,  felt  that  the  time  had  come  when, 
without  losing  prestige  among  the  people,  it  could 
adopt  a  measure  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  inde 
pendence  was  the  most  important  yet  passed. 
Therefore,  on  April  6,  the  ports  of  the  colonies  were 
thrown  open  to  trade  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  ex 
cept  Great  Britain.  But  in  so  doing  the  Congress 
also  reserved  the  right  to  enact  any  commercial 
regulations  that  future  necessity  might  require,  re- 
enacted  those  parts  of  the  Association  not  incon 
sistent  with  the  new  resolutions,  made  recommenda 
tions  to  the  colonies  as  to  the  manner  of  enforcing 
these  regulations,  directed  the  seizure  of  all  goods 
imported  from  British  dominions,  and  prohibited 


74  THE  DECLARATION   OF  INDEPENDENCE 

absolutely  the  importation  of  slaves.1  Thus  was 
ended  the  contest  that  had  been  on  for  three  months. 

The  extent  of  the  power  and  authority  which  the 
Congress  had  acquired,  is  demonstrated  by  the  pass 
ing  and  the  general  support  accorded  this  act, 
whereby  virtually  one  of  the  most  powerful  means 
for  controlling  general  continental  affairs  was  given 
up.  Its  jurisdiction  in  respect  of  trade  had  till  now 
been  maintained,  and  through  it  the  Congress  could 
influence  colonial  action  and  keep  in  touch  with  the 
condition  of  public  thought  throughout  the  country. 
But  the  question  henceforth  was  not  one  of  acquir 
ing  additional  powers,  but  of  forcing  through  a 
unanimous  resolution  of  independence. 

The  while  this  discussion  over  the  issuance  of 
some  public  announcement  respecting  trading  with 
foreign  countries  was  under  consideration,  the  Con 
gress  was  secretly  planning  to  carry  on  such  trade 
on  its  own  account,  intent  upon  procuring  from 
abroad,  notably  from  France,  all  manner  of  warlike 
supplies,  though  it  veiled  its  intentions  under  the 
guise  of  procuring  articles  suitable  for  the  Indians.2 

As  early  as  the  nineteenth  of  February  a  contract 
had  been  entered  into  with  Silas  Deane  to  engage  in 
an  enterprise  of  this  nature,  to  carry  out  which  two 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  April  6,  1776. 

2  Deane  Papers  (N.  Y.  Hist.  Soc.),  I,  116;  Journal  of  Con 
gress,  January  27,  1776. 


THE   CONGRESS   PREVAILS  75 

hundred  thousand  dollars  was  put  at  the  disposal 
of  the  committee  having  the  matter  in  charge. 
From  them  Deane  received  his  instructions  upon  the 
first  of  March.  Within  the  next  two  days  the  Com 
mittee  of  Secret  Correspondence  gave  him  credentials 
to  go  to  France  "  there  to  transact  such  Business, 
commercial  and  political  as  we  have  committed  to 
his  Care,  in  Behalf  and  by  Authority  of  the  Con 
gress  of  the  thirteen  united  Colonies,"  and  provided 
him  with  elaborate  instructions  how  to  enter  into 
negotiations  with  the  French  government.1 

If  we  examine  the  personnel  of  the  committee 
having  charge  of  the  relations  of  the  colonies  with 
foreign  countries,  the  Committee  of  Secret  Corre 
spondence  as  it  was  called,  we  discover  one  of  the 
most  interesting  facts  that  a  close  study  of  any  of 
the  affairs  of  this  period  discloses.  Of  the  five 
members  composing  the  committee,  three,  Franklin, 
Dickinson,  and  Morris,  were  from  Pennsylvania. 
Harrison  was  from  Virginia,  and  Jay  represented 
New  York.  Strangely  enough,  no  New  England 
member  was  added  to  the  committee  until  many  days 
after  independence  had  been  declared.  Moreover, 
of  this  committee  Franklin  was  the  only  openly 
avowed  radical.  Harrison,  to  say  the  least,  had 
decided  conservative  proclivities,  while  Dickinson, 
Morris,  and  Jay  were  the  most  forceful  leaders  on 

1  Deane  Papers,  117-119,  123  et  seq. 


76  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

the  conservative  side.  They  were  the  ardent  op 
ponents  of  every  measure  that  appeared  to  have  in 
dependence  for  its  object,  and  until  the  restrictions 
which  their  respective  colonies  had  placed  upon  their 
actions  respecting  independence,  were  removed,  their 
voice  and  vote  were  always  in  opposition.  And  yet, 
in  secret,  they  were  willing  to  make  themselves 
parties  to  a  policy  that  had  as  its  aim  the  nullification 
of  British  laws  respecting  the  colonies,  a  policy  that 
was  more  nearly  allied  to  actual  independence  than 
anything  previously  undertaken  by  act  of  the  Con 
gress,  and  to  do  this  a  month  in  advance  of  the  time 
when  the  Congress  adopted  the  first  of  its  most  rad 
ical  resolutions.  This  discloses  their  real  attitude, 
therefore,  not  only  to  independence,  but  to  the  col 
onies  which  they  represented.  Moreover  it  demon 
strates  how  necessary  it  was,  before  independence 
could  be  made  an  accomplished  fact,  to  have  the  in 
structions  against  independence  repealed.  Perfectly 
willing  to  do  secretly  what  they  dared  not  do  openly, 
the  actions  of  these  men  have  the  appearance  of  in 
consistency.  But  they  become  quite  comprehensible 
when  we  bear  in  mind  the  local  conditions  which 
colored  all  their  public  acts. 


CHAPTER   IV 
THE  CONGRESS  AND  THE  DEMOCRACY 

The  Congress  was  the  representative  of  the  col 
onies,  in  a  way  having  some  of  the  attributes  of  our 
Senate.  The  members  were  elected,  not  directly 
by  the  people,  but  by  what  then  corresponded  to  the 
legislatures  of  our  day — the  conventions  or  pro 
vincial  congresses  or  assemblies.  They  were,  there 
fore,  under  the  control  of  these  revolutionary  polit 
ical  organizations  and  responsible  to  them.  When, 
therefore,  an  election  to  the  Congress  was  accepted, 
the  delegate  was  of  necessity  bound  by  whatever  in 
structions  it  was  thought  meet  and  proper  to  give 
him.  Until  these  were  withdrawn  they  must  be 
followed,  no  matter  what  individual  opinions  were 
held.  It  was  consequently  impossible  for  the 
delegations  representing  New  York,  Pennsylva 
nia,  Delaware,  Maryland,  or  New  Jersey,  to  cast 
their  votes  in  favor  of  independence  until  new 
instructions  were  issued  to  them  rescinding  the 
old.1  In  fact  it  was  with  difficulty  that  they 
could  be  persuaded  to  support  the  resolutions  for 
issuing  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal2  and  open- 

1  For  prior  reference  to  these  instructions  see  p.  45. 

2  March  23,  1776,  Journal  of  Congress. 

77 


78  THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

ing  the  ports,  for  their  radical  character  was  well 
appreciated.  But  for  doing  this  they  could  plead 
extenuation  in  the  harsh  terms  of  the  Prohibitory 
Act,  and  they  took  the  chances  that  their  action 
would  meet  with  the  support  of  their  constituents, 
now  flushed  by  the  success  at  Boston,  though  the 
delegates  had  many  misgivings  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  reception  their  decidedly  conservative  commu 
nities  would  accord  such  radical  measures. 

During  the  next  three  months,1  the  aggressive 
radicals  bent  their  energies  toward  compelling  the 
colonies  to  withdraw  their  anti-independence  instruc 
tions,  and  lost  no  opportunity  to  further  their  ends. 
With  the  possible  exception  of  New  York,  no  colony 
had  been  more  persistent  in  maintaining  the  old 
order  than  Pennsylvania,  and  into  the  political  up 
heaval  going  on  in  that  colony  the  Congress  was 
about  to  project  itself  with  vigor,  knowing  full 
well  that  if  Pennsylvania  could  be  brought  into  line, 
the  cause  was  won,  for  she  still  controlled  the  policy 
of  the  middle  colonies. 

John  Jay,  not  less  than  John  Dickinson  and 
Robert  Morris,  represented  the  old-line  aristocrats 
whose  ascendancy  in  New  York,  as  in  Pennsylvania, 
was  being  undermined  by  the  rise  to  power  of  the 
democracy.  These  men  were  not  a  whit  less  patriots, 
in  the  sense  current  at  that  time,  than  Franklin  or 

1  April,  May,  and  June. 


THE   CONGRESS  AND  THE   DEMOCRACY  79 

the  Adamses  or  Jefferson.  But  independence  meant 
to  the  former  the  overthrow  of  the  administrative 
organizations  with  which  they  had  always  been 
allied,  and  which  saw  to  it  that  the  democracy  was 
held  in  check.  They  had  been  among  the  leaders 
in  disseminating  ideas  of  the  rights  of  man  and  of 
the  equality  of  men,  and  in  so  doing  were  perfectly 
consistent.  These  abstract  theories,  as  they  viewed 
it,  were  to  serve  as  a  basis  for  stating  the  American  \ 
attitude  in  the  controversy  with  England.  Little 
thought  had  been  given  to  their  possible  application 
to  conditions  in  the  colonies,  and  to  their  destructive 
effect  upon  conservative  traditions.  But  when  the 
people  at  large  had  been  fed  for  ten  years  and  more 
upon  such  a  diet,  and,  moreover,  were  called  upon  to 
enlist  and  fight  for  the  rights  which  they  had  been 
led  to  believe  were  theirs,  what  more  natural  than 
that  they  should  demand  their  full  share  when  the 
time  came  for  distribution?  Upon  their  shoulders, 
in  large  measure,  rested  the  burden  of  the  war,  and 
they  would  dictate  how  it  was  to  be  carried. 

Consequently,  in  an  especial  degree  in  the  middle 
colonies,  but  to  no  less  an  extent  in  South  Carolina,1 
political  revolutions  were  taking  place  side  by  side 
with  the  larger  struggle,  in  which  all  were  concerned 

1  See  the  notable  study  of  Dr.  Wm.  A.  Schaper  on  Section 
alism  and  Representation  in  S.  C.  in  Rep.  Am.  Hist.  Assn., 
i9po,  Vol.  I,  especially  pp.  338  et  seq.  and  354  et  seq. 


8O  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

alike.  The  democracy  was  fighting  there  not  only 
for  the  general  cause,  but  for  itself,  and  the  peaceful 
clashes  between  radicals  and  conservatives,  though 
little  less  frequent  and  determined,  are  not  heard  in 
the  din  of  the  rattle  of  musketry  and  the  roar  of 
artillery.  But  unless  they  be  taken  into  account  a 
full  appreciation  of  the  motives  underlying  the 
retarding  influences  on  independence  cannot  be  ob 
tained.  The  contest  for  independence  in  its  later 
stages,  that  is  just  before  July  4,  1776,  in  Pennsylva 
nia,  New  Jersey,  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  to 
almost  an  equal  extent  in  New  York,  Delaware, 
and  Maryland,  became  virtually  not  less  one  be 
tween  the  people  and  the  aristocrats  for  control, 
than  one  between  the  United  Colonies  and  Great 
Britain  for  the  establishment  of  a  separate  govern 
ment.  In  all  of  these  contests  the  influence  of  the 
Congress,  whenever  possible,  was  cast  on  the  side 
of  the  democracy.  The  early  sympathy  displayed 
with  it  in  November  and  December,  in  the  resolu 
tions  advising  New  Hampshire,  South  Carolina,  and 
Virginia  to  establish  governments  by  calling  a  "  full 
and  free  representation  of  the  people,"  though  not 
going  so  far  as  a  few  extreme  radicals  desired,1 
went  too  far  for  the  conservatives.  In  the  reaction 

1John  Adams  would  have  had  the  Congress  issue  instruc 
tions  to  all  the  colonies  to  form  new  governments.  See  pp. 
34-35,  43,  supra. 


THE  CONGRESS  AND  THE  DEMOCRACY  8 1 

that  followed  (in  bringing  about  which  Dickinson 
was  the  prime  mover)  instructions  were  issued  to 
the  delegations  of  five  colonies  preventing  them 
from  assenting  to  any  resolutions  favoring  independ 
ence.  These  were  designed  as  much  to  prevent  the 
overthrow  of  the  existing  governmental  machinery 
still  in  conservative  control,  as  to  bind  the  hand 
of  the  Congress.  For  it  was  well  understood  that 
if  independence  were  declared,  each  colony  would 
of  necessity  have  to  devise  a  new  form  of  govern 
ment.  In  this  process  the  conservatives  feared  that 
the  democracy  might  gain  the  upper  hand,  and  over 
turn  the  old  established  order,  and  the  wisdom  of 
their  caution  was  justified  by  subsequent  events. 

But  the  Congress,  a  revolutionary  organization, 
itself  in  large  measure  the  creature  of  the  demo 
cratic  revolutionary  organizations,  had  no  occasion 
to  stand  in  fear  of  the  people.  In  fact  the  radicals 
in  the  Congress  saw  clearly  that  dependence  must  in 
the  main  be  placed  upon  them.  And  as  the  con 
servatives  could  control  the  votes  of  only  five 
colonies  (the  votes  being  always  taken  by  colonies 
and  not  by  individuals),  they  could  not  hold  the 
radicals  in  check  when  there  was  a  full  representation 
of  the  colonies  in  the  Congress.1  Accordingly  the 

xThe  Congress  was  always  a  fluctuating  body,  and  in  the 
last  months  of  1775  and  the  first  months  of  1776,  when  affairs 
at  home  were  of  extreme  importance,  members  came  and 
went  constantly,  so  that  frequently  a  colony  was  not  repre 
sented. 
6 


82  THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Congress  took  advantage  of  every  occasion  that 
offered  to  stir  up  the  democracy,  and  this  phe 
nomenon  of  a  representative  body  taking  more 
radical  action  than  a  number  of  its  constituent  parts 
would  have  had  it,  is  one  of  the  interesting  develop 
ments  of  the  time.  It  serves  also  to  show  the  com 
plex  nature  of  the  controversy. 

The  measures  the  Congress  resorted  to  in  order  to 
accomplish  its  ends  were  various.  Perhaps  that  of 
most  consequence  was  the  increase  of  the  continental 
army,  judiciously  distributed  throughout  the  colo 
nies,  now  by  request,  again  as  the  exigencies  made 
requisite.  Through  it  the  Congress  made  its  own 
existence  a  real  entity,  and  supported  the  often  weak 
revolutionary  organizations.  Philadelphia  was  a 
great  distance  from  the  seat  of  many  of  the  colonial 
activities,  and  news  traveled  with  painful  slowness. 
The  presence,  therefore,  of  the  army,  the  outward 
demonstration  of  the  majesty  and  power  of  the  Con 
gress,  had  an  effect  in  overawing  the  opposition  to  it 
that  is  not  now  easily  discernible,  though  not  less 
potent  on  that  account.  When  the  Congress  saw  fit 
to  take  measures  to  support  the  weak  credit  of  its 
issues  of  paper  money,1  to  promote  the  signing  of 
associations,  or  to  suppress  the  activities  of  Tories, 
the  continental  army  was  ready  to  hand  to  assist, 
if  the  committees  of  safety  were  inclined  to  call 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  January  n,  1776. 


THE   CONGRESS   AND  THE  DEMOCRACY  83 

upon  it.1  When,  by  taking  part  in  the  Pennsyl 
vania-Connecticut  dispute  at  Wyoming,  it  could  let 
the  dissatisfied  elements  of  the  western  counties  of 
Pennsylvania  know  that  their  interests  were  being 
guarded  by  it,  the  Congress  did  not  hesitate  to  pro 
ject  itself  into  this  controversy,  even  though  it 
thereby  aroused  the  resentment  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Assembly.  But  the  Congress,  bent  on  establishing 
itself  with  the  people,  cared  little  for  this  Assembly, 
controlled  as  it  was  by  the  aristocrats  who  could  be 
moved  only  by  force,  and  ignored  its  existence  con 
sistently  from  the  day  that  the  Pennsylvania  Com 
mittee  of  Safety  came  into  power.  When  the  com 
mittee  was  sent  to  Canada  in  the  hope  that  the  people 
of  that  country  might  be  induced  to  join  their  forces 
in  the  struggle,  they  were  authorized  to  explain 
the  "  method  of  collecting  the  sense  of  the  People, 
and  conducting  our  Affairs  regularly  by  Committees 
of  Observation  and  Inspection  in  the  several  Dis 
tricts,  and  by  Conventions  and  Committees  of 
Safety  in  the  several  Colonies."  And  they  were 
further  to  "  press  them  to  have  a  complete  repre 
sentation  of  the  People  assembled  in  Convention, 
with  all  possible  expedition,  to  deliberate  concern- 

1  Ibid.,  January  2,  3,  5,  30,  February  5,  8,  March  8,  9,  14. 
In  one  instance  this  was  done,  however,  without  any  reference 
to  any  committee  of  safety,  assembly,  or  convention.  The 
Tories  of  Queen's  County,  New  York,  were  moved  against  by 
direct  action  of  the  Congress  by  means  of  the  continental  army. 


84  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

ing  the  establishment  of  a  Form  of  Government, 
and  Union  with  the  United  Colonies."1  And,  finally, 
when  the  Congress  was  sufficiently  strong  to  permit 
privateering,  it  adopted  one  of  its  most  popular 
measures.  For,  though  the  risks  were  great,  the 
returns  were  so  large  as  to  interfere  seriously  with 
enlistments  in  the  army — the  pomp,  and  circum 
stance,  and  glory  of  war  seemingly  making  weaker 
appeal  to  the  patriots  of  those  days,  than  the  for 
tunes  to  be  gained  by  the  less  poetic,  but  more  re 
munerative  preying  upon  England's  commerce. 

The  carrying  through  of  the  resolutions  outlined 
above  was  made  possible  only  by  the  never-tiring 
aggressiveness  of  the  radical  minority,  who  made 
up  for  the  slimness  of  their  numbers  by  the  stout 
ness  of  their  intellects.  At  the  beginning  of  the  year 
1776  the  outspoken  advocates  of  independence  then 
in  the  Congress  were  George  Wythe  of  Virginia, 
Gadsen  of  South  Carolina,  McKean  of  Delaware, 
Franklin  of  Pennsylvania,  Ward  of  Rhode  Island, 
Deane  of  Connecticut,  and  Samuel  Adams  of  Massa 
chusetts.  The  accession  of  the  new  Connecticut 
delegation,  which  arrived  on  January  16,  followed 
by  Samuel  Chase,  John  Adams,  and  Elbridge  Gerry 
shortly  after,  gave  strength  to  their  ranks,  by 
way  of  ability,  far  in  excess  of  their  numbers. 
There  were  some  losses  as  well,  for  Gadsen  left 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  March  20,  1776,  Bradford  edition. 


THE  CONGRESS  AND  THE  DEMOCRACY  8$ 

about  the  middle  of  January  to  take  part  in  the 
affairs  of  his  own  colony,  and  Ward  died  on  March 
25.  But  the  loss  of  the  latter  was  more  than  made 
good  by  the  arrival  of  Richard  Henry  Lee,  in  the 
second  week  of  March.  Until  the  end  of  April 
they  had  no  important  additions  to  their  numbers. 
Upon  the  shoulders  of  these  few  men  rested  the 
burden  of  the  fight  for  independence  in  the  Con 
gress,  and  that  it  was  carried  on  with  such  skill  and 
with  ultimate  success,  was  due  to  the  inexhaustible 
resourcefulness  of  their  sharp  wits.  Largely 
through  their  exertions  the  Congress  had  established 
itself.  For  the  next  two  months  (May  and  June) 
they  bent  their  energies  to  forcing  their  way  through 
to  their  ultimate  goal — a  unanimous  declaration  of 
independence. 

But  with  all  their  aggressiveness  and  alertness 
and  ability,  in  spite  of  the  great  encouragement  they 
were  giving  to  the  popular  party  in  Philadelphia, 
and  the  pressure  they  could  bring  to  bear  on  indi 
vidual  members,  they  had  not  been  able  to  make 
any  impression  on  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly  as  a 
whole.  The  local  fight,  now  of  several  months 
duration,  to  have  that  body  agree  to  a  material  in 
crease  in  the  representation  of  the  western  counties 
and  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  and  to  an  extension 
of  the  suffrage  qualifications,  proved  almost  barren 
of  result,  except  to  incense  further  the  popular  party. 


86  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Yet  the  Assembly  was  so  blind  as  not  to  see  the  ex 
tent  and  force  of  this  popular  uprising ;  and  sitting 
in  the  room  above  that  in  which  the  Congress  held 
its  sessions,  on  the  very  day  that  the  Congress  was 
opening  the  ports  of  the  country,  the  Assembly  was 
obstinately  voting,  by  a  large  majority,  not  to  alter 
the  instructions  to  the  delegates  on  the  subject  of 
independence.1  But  the  Congress,  grown  some 
what  arbitrary  by  the  rapid  advances  toward  inde 
pendence  it  saw  making  elsewhere,  would  not  sit 
idly  by  without  taking  some  measure  to  show  its 
sympathy  with  the  disappointed  democracy  of  Penn 
sylvania.  To  the  much  dissatisfied  elements  in  the 
western  counties  it  had  been  responsive  on  a  pre 
vious  occasion,2  as  if  to  let  the  people  there  know 
that,  though  the  Assembly  was  against  them,  the 
stronger  arm  of  the  Congress  would  be  raised  in 
their  behalf  whenever  expedient.  The  border  war 
fare  between  the  Pennsylvania  and  the  Connecticut 
settlers  at  Wyoming  still  continued,  and  an  oppor 
tunity  arose  in  the  middle  of  April  for  the  Congress 
again  to  take  a  hand.3  It  did  this  now  with  the 
more  readiness,  because  it  could  thereby  make 
known  that  the  welfare  of  no  part  of  the  country 
was  being  overlooked,  and  that  the  inhabitants  of 

1  See  Lincoln,  op.  cit.,  Chap.  XIII. 

2  Journal  of  Congress,  December  20,  1775. 
8  Journal  of  Congress,  April  15,  1776. 


THE   CONGRESS   AND  THE   DEMOCRACY  8/ 

the  western  counties  in  their  dispute  with  the  Penn 
sylvania  Assembly  would  continue  to  find  a  sturdy 
advocate  before  the  Congress. 

In  the  full  flush  of  its  new-found  strength  the 
Congress  went  further  afield  and  seeing,  as  it 
thought,  an  opportunity  to  advance  fkt  inierests  of 
the  independence  party  in  Maryland,  proceeded 
to  attempt  to  lay  down  the  rule  of  conduct  for  that 
colony.  The  conditions  were  in  some  respects  not 
dissimilar  from  those  in  Pennsylvania,  and  the  pres 
ence  of  a  most  amiable,  respected^  and  popular  gov 
ernor,  Eden,  still  exercising  some  of  his  functions, 
served  to  complicate  matters.  He  iiad  been  able,  in 
great  measure,  to  keep  control  of  tie  Convention  and 
Council  of  Safety,  though  the  Baltimore  Committee 
had  not  proved  so  tractable.  It  was  largely  due  to 
his  influence  that  Maryland  had  taken  her  stand 
against  independence,  and  though  hid  authority  was 
waning  at  this  time  (the  middle  of  April)  it  was  as 
yet  far  from  gone.  When,  therefore^  the  Congress 
had  put  before  it,  by  the  Baltimore  'Committee,  a 
batch  of  Eden's  correspondence  with  the  home  au 
thorities,  it  immediately  responded  by  calling  upon 
the  Maryland  Council  of  Safety  to  seize  and  secure 
the  governor  and  have  his  papers  relating  "  to  the 
American  dispute,  without  delay  conveyed  safely  to 
Congress."1  But  the  Congress  had  reckoned  with 
out  its  host. 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  April  16,  1776. 


88  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Without  delay,  it  is  true,  the  Council  of  Safety 
took  up  the  cause,  but  in  a  manner  far  different  from 
what  had  been  anticipated.  Its  members  considered 
their  dignity  offended  by  the  Congress  acting  at 
once:  upon  the  information  provided  by  the  Balti 
more  Committee,  without  first  referring  the  matter 
to  the  Council  of  Safety.  They  denounced  the 
Baltimore  Committee,  and  especially  its  president, 
for  exercising  an  authority  which  went  far  beyond 
the  bounds  to  whiUi  it  was  considered  they  should 
have  been  limited-*  and  the  echoes  of  the  controversy 
resounded  in  the,  halls  of  the  Maryland  Convention 
when  it  met  a  fe\/  weeks  later.1  Instead  of  seizing 
Governor  Eden,  tfciey  considered  his  case  for  several 
weeks,  and  finally  advised  him  to  depart  in  peace 
with  his  possessions.2  When,  therefore,  the  resolu 
tion  of  the  Congress  on  the  subject  of  forming  new 
governments  and  putting  an  end  to  all  authority 
derived  from*  the  crown,3  came  before  them,  they 
were  still  smarting  under  what  they  believed  to  be 
the  insult  put  upon  them  by  the  Congress.  Despite 
that  they,  had  less  than  a  week  before  absolved  all 
persons  ^lom  taking  the  usual  oaths  to  the  govern 
ment,  upon  assuming  office,  they  now  not  only  passed 

xMay  8,  1776,  Proc.  of  Md.  Conventions,  Baltimore,  1836, 
125. 

2  May  24,  1776,  Ibid.,  150-152. 

3  See  pp.  Qi-94- 


THE   CONGRESS   AND  THE   DEMOCRACY  89 

long  resolutions  expressing  their  opinion  that  the 
necessity  had  not  yet  arisen  for  suppressing  the 
exercise  of  every  kind  of  authority  under  the  crown, 
and  in  its  place  having  all  the  powers  of  government 
exercised  under  the  authority  of  the  people,  but  went 
further,  and  specifically  notified  the  delegates  in 
the  Congress  to  follow  the  old  instructions  directing 
them  not  to  vote  for  independence,  "  in  the  same 
manner  as  if  the  said  instructions  were  particularly 
repeated."1  In  this  instance  the  intrusion  of  the 
Congress  into  Maryland's  affairs  had  retarded  in 
stead  of  advanced  the  cause  of  independence,  and 
the  effects  of  the  friction  engendered  between  the 
Congress  and  the  Convention,  and  between  Mary 
land's  delegates  and  the  President,  Hancock,  and 
other  delegates,  did  not  wear  off  before  six  weeks 
had  passed  away. 

But  a  set-back  of  this  nature  did  not  daunt  the 
radicals,  who  were  now  finding  popular  support 
throughout  the  colonies.  The  measures  that  the 
Congress  had  so  far  adopted  were  looked  upon 
everywhere  as  warranted  by  the  necessities  of  the 
situation.  From  all  sides  information  was  coming 

*  »•  V 

in  that  the  popularity  of  independence  was  growing 
apace.  The  correspondence  of  the  time,  the 
gazettes,  the  resolutions  of  local  committees,  all 
were  viewing  with  marked  favor  the  idea  that  six 

1  Proc.  of  Md.  Conventions,  May  21,  142. 


9<D  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

months  before  had  found  scarcely  an  advocate.1 
These  gave  courage  to  the  radicals  in  the  Congress, 
and  furnished  the  incentive  to  pursue  bolder  meas 
ures  still.  The  inertia  of  the  conservative  middle 
colonies  had  to  be  overcome,  and  if  they  would  not 
of  themselves  withdraw  the  instructions  against 
independence,  the  Congress  would  give  them  the 
occasion.  This  reasoning  applied  with  particular 
force  to  Pennsylvania,  whose  Assembly  still  stood 
as  a  stone  wall  against  all  pressure  brought  to  bear 
on  it,  for  as  has  been  well  said,  "  Pennsylvania  was 
the  battle-ground  of  the  movement  at  this  time."  2 
Some  direct  appeal  must  be  made  which  if  not  re 
plied  to  by  the  conservatives  in  a  manner  satis 
factory  to  the  independence  party  in  Pennsylvania, 
as  elsewhere,  would  result  in  the  overthrow  of  the 
old  order. 

As  if  to  provide  the  radicals  with  a  lever  with 
which  to  raise  out  of  their  depths  of  doubt  and  hesi 
tation  the  many  still  hoping  for  commissioners  or 
other  means  of  reconciliation,  came  the  definite 
news,  early  in  May,3  that  great  numbers  of  Han 
overian  and  Hessian  soldiers  were  being  sent  over. 
The  cry  against  resorting  to  the  aid  of  foreign  mer 
cenaries,  who  could  have  no  interest  in  the  contest, 

lSee  Austin's  Gerry,  I,  179. 

2  John  Adams'  Works,  III,  45,  note. 

3  See  p.  67. 


THE   CONGRESS   AND  THE  DEMOCRACY  gi 

and  would,  therefore,  be  certain  to  carry  on  the 
war  with  a  cruelty  not  to  be  expected  of  those 
speaking  their  own  language  and  having  much  in 
common  with  them,  resounded  through  the  land; 
and  while  serving  to  give  pause  to  many  who  halted 
at  the  thought  of  the  seeming  impossibility  of  with 
standing  such  an  overwhelming  force,  aroused  the 
spirit  of  a  far  greater  number  to  meet  the  oncoming 
hosts  with  all  the  strength  and  determination  within 
them. 

John  Adams,  always  ready  for  some  bold  stroke, 
now  came  forward  and  sought  to  force  matters. 
He  would  have  had  the  colonies  that  had  put 
limitations  upon  the  actions  of  their  delegates,  re 
quested  to  repeal  their  instructions,  giving  as  rea 
son  the  present  state  of  America  and  "  the  cruel 
efforts  of  our  enemies  "  which  rendered  it  necessary 
that  a  perfect  union  be  formed  to  preserve  and  es 
tablish  our  liberties.1  But  largely  because  of  the 
feeling  that  prevailed  in  the  minds  of  the  more  con 
servative  that  this  was  going  too  far  for  the  time, 
and  that  the  ultimate  aim  might  be  attained  the 
better  in  another  way,  this  motion  in  the  form  finally 
adopted  was  toned  down  considerably.  It  made 
a  recommendation  to  the  assemblies  and  conven 
tions,  "  where  no  government  sufficient  to  the 
exigencies  of  their  affairs  hath  been  hitherto  estab- 

1  Probably  on  May  6,  1776.     See  Works,  II,  489. 


92  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

lished,  to  adopt  such  government  as  shall  in  the 
opinion  of  the  representatives  of  the  people  best 
conduce  to  the  happiness  and  safety  of  their  con 
stituents  in  particular  and  America  in  general."1 
And  this  was  followed  by  the  selection  of  a  radical 
committee  to  prepare  a  preamble  intended  to  state 
the  reason  for  advising  such  action. 

In  the  interval  between  their  appointment  and  the 
adoption  of  the  preamble  which  they  reported,  two 
important  incidents  occurred,  which  could  not  have 
been  without  influence  in  shaping  the  course  of  the 
Congress'  action.  On  the  day  before  the  final  vote 
on  the  preamble  was  taken,  Jefferson,  fresh  from  his 
labors  in  Virginia,  took  his  seat  in  the  Congress, 
from  which  he  had  been  absent  for  more  than  four 
months ;  and  Ellery  arrived  from  Rhode  Island 
bringing  with  him  new  instructions, but  just  issued  to 
her  delegates  by  that  colony,  permitting  them  to  vote 
for  independence  if  joined  by  others.2  Though  Jef 
ferson  bore  no  new  instructions,  he  was  perfectly  in 
touch  with  affairs  in  his  own  colony,  knew  how 
county  upon  county  was  demanding  that  the  recently 
called  convention  should  renounce  allegiance  to  Great 
Britain,  and  was  therefore  ready  to  aid  in  every  way 
in  furthering  such  views.  The  Rhode  Island  in- 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  May  10,  1776. 

2  These   instructions  are  in  Journal  of  Congress,   May   14, 
1776. 


THE   CONGRESS   AND  THE  DEMOCRACY  93 

structions,  though  not  mentioning  independence  (be 
cause  in  the  phrasing  of  the  astute  governor  of  that 
colony,  "  dependency  is  a  word  of  so  equivocal  a 
meaning,  and  hath  been  used  to  such  ill  purposes, 
and  independency,  with  many  honest  and  ignorant 
people  carrying  the  idea  of  eternal  warfare  ")/  were 
so  general  in  their  character  as  to  give  the  delega 
tion  full  powers  to  do  or  vote  as  they  wished.  With 
two  such  accessions  to  the  ranks  of  the  radicals  in 
the  Congress  the  preamble  was  carried  through  with 
a  rush. 

As  usual,  the  occasion  for  giving  the  authority  of 
the  Congress  to  the  recommendation  now  made  to 
the  colonies  is  sought  in  some  British  acts  of  aggres 
sion  or  shortcoming.  These  are  stated  to  be  the 
exclusion  by  the  King,  in  conjunction  with  the 
Lords  and  Commons,  of  the  colonies  from  the  pro 
tection  of  his  crown ;  the  failure  to  answer  the  peti 
tion,  and  the  use  of  the  full  force  of  the  kingdom, 
combined  with  foreign  mercenaries,  to  accomplish 
the  subjugation  of  America.  Under  such  circum 
stances  "  it  appears  absolutely  unreconcilable  to  rea 
son  and  good  conscience,  for  the  people  of  these 
colonies  now  to  take  the  oaths  and  affirmations  neces 
sary  for  the  support  of  any  government  under  the 
crown  of  Great  Britain."  Instead,  every  kind  of 
authority  under  the  crown  should  be  totally  sup- 

1  Staples,  Rhode  Island  in  the  Continental  Congress,  68. 


94  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

pressed,  and  all  the  powers  of  government  exerted 
by  authority  of  the  people  of  the  colonies  "  for  the 
preservation  of  internal  peace  virtue  and  good  or 
der,  as  well  as  for  the  defence  of  their  lives,  liberties 
and  properties,  against  the  hostile  invasions  and 
cruel  depredations  of  their  enemies."1 

To  stay  the  passage  of  this  preamble,  to  them  more 
offensive  even  than  the  resolution  for  which  it  fur 
nished  the  pretext,  Duane  of  New  York,  and  Wilson 
of  Pennsylvania  uttered  loud  and  earnest  protest. 
They  were  fully  cognizant  that  the  intent  of  its 
clauses  was  to  compass  the  overthrow  of  the  totter 
ing  Pennsylvania  Assembly,  and  bring  pressure  to 
bear  upon  the  conservative  elements  of  New  York 
and  the  other  hesitating  colonies.  This  could  be  done 
only  by  an  appeal  to  the  people,  and  the  Congress 
had  not  dared  as  yet  to  go  so  far  in  proclaiming 
its  reliance  upon  them.  But  it  was  foreseen  that 
an  appeal  of  another  sort  must  shortly  be  made  to 
them  to  come  forth  in  large  numbers  to  fight  the 
greater  future  battles  for  liberty,  compared  with 
which  all  the  clashes  that  had  already  occurred  were 
as  preliminary  skirmishes.  And  to  ensure  the  success 
of  its  extensive  plans  the  Congress  was  more  than 
willing  to  give  the  democracy,  whenever  it  might, 
some  show  to  procure  the  rights  which  it  was 
clamoring  for  in  louder  and  ever  louder  degree. 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  May  15,  1776,  Aitken  edition,  1777. 


THE    CONGRESS   AND   THE   DEMOCRACY  95 

Having  been  instrumental  in  accomplishing  so 
much,  John  Adams  could  with  good  grace  unbosom 
himself  to  his  wife  to  this  effect :  "  Great  Britain  has 
at  last  driven  America  to  the  last  step,  a  complete 
separation  from  her;  a  total  absolute  independence, 
not  only  of  her  Parliament,  but  of  her  Crown,  for 
such  is  the  amount  of  the  resolve  of  the  I5th,  .  .  . 
This  is  effected  by  extinguishing  all  authority  under 
the  crown,  Parliament,  and  nation,  as  the  resolu 
tion  for  instituting  governments  has  done,  to  all  in 
tents  and  purposes."1  In  those  few  words  John 
Adams  touched  upon  the  salient  point  of  the 
resolution — the  renouncement  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  crown.  Hitherto  this  had  not  been  brought 
seriously  into  question,  in  any  of  the  public  docu 
ments  of  the  Congress.2  And  the  form  this  now 
took  but  foreshadowed  the  terms  in  which  would  be 
couched  the  definite  Declaration  of  Independence 
itself. 

The  latter  end  of  the  month  of  May  and  the  first 
week  of  June  had  crowded  into  these  few  days 
events,  the  bigness  of  which  by  far  transcended  any 
thing  that  had  gone  before.  The  Congress  was 
approaching  rapidly  to  the  highest  point  of  its  au 
thority.  It  had  already  assumed  to  give  a  com 
mittee  full  power,  in  carrying  out  its  investigations, 

1  Letters  to  his  Wife,  I,  109-110. 

2  See  Chapter  VII. 


96  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

to  send  for  persons  and  papers.1  This  was  an  ex 
tension  of  jurisdiction  that  would  not  until  now  have 
been  acquiesced  in  for  a  moment.  The  arrival  on 
the  twentieth  of  May  of  Button  Gwinnett  and  Ly- 
man  Hall  from  Georgia,  bringing  with  them  broad 
instructions  to  agree  to  any  of  the  acts  of  the  Con 
gress,  was  an  important  accession  to  the  ranks  of  the 
radicals,  even  though  these  two  represented  few 
more  than  a  handful  of  the  revolutionists  of  Sa 
vannah.  Thus  strengthened,  the  Congress  could, 
with  the  greater  complacency,  studiously  ignore 
Maryland's  reactionary  resolutions,  which  were  read 
in  the  Congress  on  the  twenty-fourth.2  Within  a 
few  days  the  consideration  of  plans  for  retrieving 
the  miscarriages  and  blunders  in  Canada,  and  carry 
ing  on  the  war  with  determined  energy  was  entered 
upon  with  enthusiasm.  For  this  purpose  Washing 
ton  and  Gates  were  called  to  the  councils  of  the  Con 
gress  from  New  York,  where  they  were  awaiting 
and  preparing  to  meet  the  expected  reinforcements 
to  the  British  arms. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  instructions  laid 
before  the  Congress  by  the  North  Carolina  and  Vir 
ginia  delegates  on  May  27,  proved  welcome  read 
ing.  North  Carolina's  provincial  Congress  had 
passed  the  resolution  empowering  her  representa- 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  May  8,  1776. 

2  See  p.  89  supra. 


THE   CONGRESS  AND  THE  DEMOCRACY  97 

tives  to  join  with  the  delegates  from  the  other 
colonies  in  declaring  independence,  on  the  twelfth 
of  the  month  preceding.  For  some  reason,  not 
fully  to  be  accounted  for,  its  presentation  had  been 
thus  long  delayed.  It  was  probably  not  sent  off 
with  promptness,  and  when  received  was  held  back 
by  Hewes  who,  unaided,  had  born  the  brunt  of 
guarding  North  Carolina's  interests  in  Philadelphia, 
for  several  months  past.  Before  presenting  it  he 
had  thought  well  to  wait  a  while  in  the  hope  that 
another  delegate  might  arrive  to  share  with  him 
the  heavy  responsibility  of  taking  so  momentous  a 
step.  But  no  such  considerations  weighed  with  the 
Virginia  delegation.  Their  instructions  were  more 
explicit  than  any  hitherto  passed.  They  were  not 
merely  to  join  with  others  in  declaring  independence 
when  the  Congress  saw  fit  to  adopt  such  a  measure, 
but  were  to  make  the  first  move  by  presenting  a 
specific  proposal  to  that  end.  Only  the  multiplicity 
of  affairs  receiving  consideration  at  this  time,  pre 
vented  the  Congress  from  at  once  giving  a  hearing  to 
Virginia's  proposition. 

The  Congress  was  now  on  the  point  of  making  a 
call  for  greater  numbers  of  troops  than  any  hitherto 
sent  out.  Some  attempt  must  be  made  to  retrieve 
the  miscarriages  and  disasters  in  Canada,  and  a 
bold  front  must  be  put  on  to  meet  the  serious  situa 
tion  in  New  York.1  To  do  this  without  stating 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  June  i,  3,  1776. 
7 


98  THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

publicly  the  reasons,  so  that  all  might  be  made  famil 
iar  with  them  would  arouse  criticism,  might  even 
cause  dissension.  To  avoid  this  possibility,  it  was 
decided  to  have  the  call  for  troops  accompanied  by  a 
stirring  address  that  would  "  impress  the  minds  of 
the  people  with  the  necessity  of  now  stepping  for 
ward  to  save  their  country,  their  freedom  and  prop 
erty."1  Moreover  it  was  well  understood  that  in 
dependence  was  now  a  question,  at  most,  of  only  a 
few  weeks,  and  once  declared,  the  Congress  must 
be  in  a  position  to  sustain  it  by  force  of  arms  if  need 
be.  For  none  appreciated  better  than  the  members 
of  the  Congress,  the  necessity  of  being  prepared  to 
suppress  with  determination  the  dissenters  from  the 
measures  for  which  it  stood  sponsor,  from  the  day 
when  it  renounced  all  connection  with  Great  Britain. 
The  time  was  at  hand  when  all  must  declare  either 
for  the  Congress  or  against  it — and  those  who  fol 
lowed  the  latter  course  must  be  ready  to  pay  the 
full  cost  of  their  tenacity  of  opinion. 

1  Secret  Journal  of  Congress,  Domestic,  May  29,  1776.  The 
address  intended  was  never  issued,  as  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence  more  than  took  its  place. 


CHAPTER   V 
INDEPENDENCE  IN  THE  MAKING 

A  brief  survey  of  the  status  of  the  independence 
sentiment  throughout  the  colonies  at  the  opening  of 
the  month  of  June,  as  mirrored  in  the  instructions 
to  the  delegates  in  the  Congress,  discloses  the  fact 
that  but  one  colony,  Virginia,  had  given  unequi 
vocal  expression  to  its  views.  Excepting  only  that 
colony,  none  had  directed  that  a  definite  proposal 
upon  the  subject  of  independence  should  be  made; 
the  five  middle  colonies  had  not  rescinded  their  reso 
lutions  against  it,  and  the  instructions  of  only  one 
other,  North  Carolina,  mentioned  the  word.  But 
throughout  New  England,  the  resolutions  of  the 
towns  spoke  as  with  one  voice  in  favor  of  a  declara 
tion  by  the  Congress.  Massachusetts,  carrying  out 
her  policy,  laid  down  nearly  two  years  before,  had 
not  officially  come  forward  to  demand  what  was  the 
overwhelming  desire  of  her  inhabitants.  She  had 
made  so  many  advances  in  the  past,  had  seen  so 
many  of  her  grievances  taken  up  and  made  common 
issue  of,  that  she  thought  it  well  to  let  the  great 
renouncement  take  its  origin  elsewhere.  She  would 
be  content  to  show  her  mettle  after  the  die  was  cast. 

99 


IOO        THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

The  middle  colonies  had  not  yet  spoken;  but  they 
were  in  a  ferment  of  discussion,  and  the  day  for  de 
ciding  the  all-important  question  could  not  long  be 
put  off.  Of  the  southern  colonies,  the  action  of 
South  Carolina  alone  was  doubtful.  The  instruc 
tions  to  her  delegates,  issued  by  the  revolutionary 
organization,  which  had  overthrown  the  old  form  of 
government  and  substituted  a  new  in  its  place, 
were  comprehensive.  But  scarcely  half  a  dozen 
of  the  men  who  were  the  leaders  in  the  local  revolu 
tionary  movement  favored  independence.  The  in 
structions  could  not,  therefore,  accurately  be  con 
strued  as  authorizing  a  vote  for  independence.  At 
most  the  delegates  could  use  their  best  judgment  as 
to  the  right  course  to  follow.1 

Such  was  the  situation  when  on  June  7,  in  accord- 
/  ance  with  the  terms  of  Virginia's  instructions,  Rich 
ard  Henry  Lee,  speaking  for  his  colleagues,  intro- 
Y  duced  the  resolutions,  written  in  his  own  hand  and 
reading :  "  Resolved,  That  these  United  Colonies 
are,  and  of  right  ought  to  be,  free  and  independent 
States,  that  they  are  absolved  from  all  allegiance 
to  the  British  Crown,  and  that  all  political  connec- 
tipn  between  them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain 
is,  and  ought  to  be,  totally  dissolved. 

"  That  it  is  expedient  to  take  the  most  effectual 
measures  for  forming  foreign  alliances. 

1  McCrady,  S.  C.  in  the  Revolution,  Chapter  VI. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE   MAKING  IOI 

"  That  a  plan  of  confederation  be  prepared  and 
transmitted  to  the  respective  Colonies  for  their  con 
sideration  and  approbation."1  That  Virginia's  dele 
gation  would  propose  the  adoption  of  some  such 
statements,  was  foreseen  ten  days  before  when  the 
Congress  had  listened  to  the  formal  reading  of  the 
resolves  of  the  Virginia  Convention.  And  if  any 
thing  more  were  needed  to  strengthen  the  conviction 
that  it  was  useless  to  hope  for  a  change  of  policy  on 
the  part  of  Great  Britain,  and  that  Virginia's  move 
was,  therefore,  timely  and  appropriate,  this  was 
furnished  by  the  King's  brief  answer,  just  to  hand, 
delivered  in  reply  to  the  address  and  petition  of  the 
Lord  Mayor  and  Aldermen  of  London  on  March 
22. 2  But  even  with  the  action  of  Virginia's  dele 
gation  fully  expected,  and  with  the  determined 
words  of  the  King  before  them,  there  must  have 
been  something  at  least  approaching  a  shock  in  Inde 
pendence  Chamber  when  this  "  hobgobling  of  so 

1  The  original  MS  of  these  resolutions  is  among  the  Papers 
of   the    Continental    Congress    recently   transferred    from   the 
Department  of  State  to  the  Library  of  Congress.      The  sheet 
on  which  they  are  written  has  had  added  to  it,  partly  in  the 
hand   of   Benjamin    Harrison   and   partly   in  that   of   Charles 
Thomson    and    another   not    identified,    the    determination    of 
Congress    thereupon,    as    afterwards    entered    in    the    journal. 
It  also  bears  an  endorsement  in  Thomson's  hand.    A  facsimile 
is  in  Force,  4th,  VI,  facing  1700. 

2  See  Force,  4th,  VI,  462-463. 


IO2         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

frightful  a  mien  "l  actually  stalked  into  their  midst. 
This  may  account  for  the  unsatisfactory  entry  on 
the  Journal  of  Congress,  which  fails  to  inform  us 
who  were  the  mover  and  seconder,  though  it  duly 
records  that  the  resolutions  obtained  a  second,  and 
from  other  sources  we  learn  that  it  was  John  Adams 
who  thus  spoke  out. 

For  all  that  they  had  been  long  demanding  action, 
even  the  radicals  entered  upon  the  discussion  of  this 
momentous  subject  not  unmindful  of  the  seriousness 
of  the  consequences  involved.  They  were  aggres 
sive  and  persistent  still,  had  advocated  a  reckless 
course  in  times  past,  and  were  eager  that  a  con 
clusion  should  be  reached,  but  above  all  they  per 
ceived  the  necessity  for  unanimity,  now  more  than 
ever.  They  were  entirely  willing,  therefore,  that 
consideration  should  be  postponed  for  a  day,  the 
members  being  enjoined  to  attend  punctually  at  ten 
o'clock  the  next  morning.  As  if  to  foreshadow 
the  great  part  he  was  to  play  in  fashioning  the 
document  in  which  independence  is  proclaimed, 
Jefferson,  and  he  alone,  made  notes  of  the  great 
debates  held  on  the  eighth  and  tenth  of  June,  and 
on  July  i.2  The  main  burden  of  the  opposition  fell 
upon  the  shoulders  of  Wilson,  Robert  R.  Living 
ston,  Dickinson,  and  Edward  Rutledge,  all  but  the 

1  John  Adams. 

z  Works,  Ford  edition,  I,  18-28. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN    THE    MAKING  IC>3 

last  representing  the  middle  colonies.  They  held 
that,  though  friendly  to  the  measure,  with  them  it 
was  a  question  of  its  opportuneness ;  there  had 
always  been  delay  in  taking  any  important  step 
until  the  voice  of  the  people  demanded  it ;  the  mid 
dle  colonies  were  "  not  yet  ripe  for  bidding  adieu  to 
British  connection,  but  they  were  fast  ripening  and 
in  a  short  time  would  join  in  the  general  voice  of 
America,"  and  the  dissensions  created  by  the  resolu 
tion  of  May  15,  demonstrated  this;  that  some  dele 
gations  had  not  the  authority  to  consent  to  such  a 
declaration,  and  certainly  the  delegates  of  the  other 
colonies  had  no  power  to  answer  for  them;  that 
as  the  assembly  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  New  York 
convention  were  then  in  session,  and  conventions 
would  meet  in  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and  New 
Jersey  in  a  few  days,  and  would  probably  take  up 
the  question  of  their  attitude  toward  independence, 
they  should  wait  until  they  could  be  heard  from ; 
that  there  was  danger  if  such  a  declaration  was 
made  now,  the  instructed  delegates  must  retire,  and 
possibly  their  colonies  might  secede  from  the  union. 
Taking  up  the  matter  of  foreign  alliances,  they 
argued  that  it  would  be  best  to  wait  until  they 
learned  from  the  agent  sent  to  Paris  as  to  the  dis 
position  of  the  French  court ;  that  by  waiting,  if  the 
ensuing  campaign  was  successful,  they  could  make 
an  alliance  on  better  terms,  and  that  they  should 


IO4         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

agree  among  themselves  upon  the  terms  on  which 
to  form  an  alliance,  before  declaring  to  form  one  at 
all  events.  It  is  probable,  too,  that  some  stress  was 
laid,  at  least  by  Dickinson,  upon  the  desirability  of 
forming  a  confederation  before  declaring  independ 
ence,  as  this  was  a  point  on  which  he  is  reported 
to  have  laid  particular  emphasis  during  the  preced 
ing  months.1 

Against  these  contentions  "  the  Power  of  all  New 
England,  Virginia  and  Georgia "  was  thrown,2 
though  the  principal  spokesmen  were  John  Adams, 
Wythe,  and  Lee  until  his  departure  for  Virginia  on 
June  10.  They  held  that  the  arguments  of  the 
opposition  were  not  against  the  proposition  itself 
but  its  timeliness ;  that  the  question  was  not  one  of 
announcing  something  new,  but  by  a  declaration  of 
independence  of  announcing  a  fact  which  already 

1Stille's  Dickinson.  On  July  21,  1775,  Franklin  brought 
forward  his  plan  of  a  confederation,  which  appears  to  have 
been  read  in  Congress  but  received  no  further  consideration. 
Secret  Journal,  Domestic,  283  et  seq.  A  plan  was  considered 
by  the  Congress,  January  16,  1776  (Diary  of  Richard  Smith), 
but  was  opposed  by  Dickinson  and  Hooper  among  others. 
This  was  probably  a  modification  of  Franklin's  original  plan, 
which  he  had  transmitted  to  various  colonies  for  examination. 
In  all  likelihood  this  was  the  plan  published  in  the  Penna. 
Evening  Post,  for  March  5,  1776,  and  it  may  have  been  pub 
lished  then  in  order  to  answer  the  objection  that  confedera 
tion  should  precede  independence. 

2  Jefferson's  Works,  I,   19,  note. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE   MAKING  IO5 

existed;  they  had  never  acknowledged  the  domi 
nance  of  the  people  or  Parliament  of  England,  and 
the  restraints  which  they  had  imposed  on  trade, 
derived  effect  only  from  acquiescence  in  them ; 
their  allegiance  to  the  King  was  now  dissolved  by 
his  assent  to  the  late  act  of  Parliament  declaring 
them  out  of  his  protection  and  by  levying  war  upon 
them;  that  James  II  had  not  formally  declared  the 
English  people  out  of  his  protection  and  "  yet  his 
action  proved  it  &  the  parliament  declared  it,"  and 
this  was  their  position.  They  argued  that  the 
prohibitory  instructions,  particularly  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  were  drawn  a  long  time  back,  when  condi 
tions  were  different;  that  the  people  were  waiting 
for  the  Congress  to  lead  the  way,  and  were  in  favor 
of  the  measure  though  some  of  their  representatives 
were  not.  Attacking  the  "  proprietary  powers " 
(in  which  we  hear  the  voice  of  John  Adams)  as 
responsible  for  this  backward  attitude  of  Pennsyl 
vania  and  Maryland,  they  held  that  the  conduct  of 
some  colonies  from  the  beginning  gave  rise  to  the 
suspicion  that  it  was  their  policy  to  lag  behind  the 
rest  in  order  that  "  their  particular  prospect  might 
be  better,  even  in  the  worst  event,"  that  the  colonies 
which  had  come  forward  in  the  beginning  and 
hazarded  all  must  do  so  now,  and  "  put  all  again 
to  their  own  hazard."  As  to  secession,  they  had 
no  fears,  and  even  if  the  dissatisfied  colonies  seceded 


IO6         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

(and  here  again  the  sound  of  John  Adams's  voice  is 
unmistakable)  "  the  history  of  the  Dutch  revolution 
proved  that  a  secession  of  some  colonists  would  not 
be  so  dangerous  as  some  apprehended."  Respect 
ing  foreign  alliances,  no  nation  of  Europe  would 
treat  with  us  or  receive  an  ambassador  from  us 
unless  we  were  first  independent,  that  they  might 
not  even  afterward,  but  we  should  never  know  with 
out  trying ;  that  the  ensuing  campaign  might  prove 
unsuccessful,  and  that  an  alliance  had  better  be  pro 
posed  "  while  our  affairs  wear  a  hopeful  aspect." 

It  becomes  clear  from  an  examination  of  these 
debates,  (which  took  place  in  committee  of  the  whole 
with  Harrison  of  Virginia  in  the  chair),  even  in  the 
fragmentary  form  in  which  they  have  come  down 
to  us,  that  all  energies  had  to  be  concentrated  on 
the  middle  colonies  if  they  were  to  be  won  over  to 
acquiesce  in  the  determination  reached  by  the  seven 
other  colonies,  and  that  the  opposing  conventions  and 
assemblies  must  be  informed  of  the  attitude  of  the 
majority  of  the  Congress.  A  compromise  involving 
delay  was,  therefore,  a  welcome  proposal.  So  that 
when  Edward  Rutledge,  on  behalf  of  his  colony, 
moved  on  the  tenth  that  the  consideration  of  the 
first  resolution  be  postponed  for  three  weeks,  it  was 
passed  with  the  proviso  that  in  order  that  no  time 
might  be  lost  in  case  the  Congress  finally  agreed 
thereto,  a  committee  should  be  selected  to  prepare 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE    MAKING  1 07 

a  declaration  which  should  serve  as  a  preamble  to 
the  resolution.1  On  the  next  day  Jefferson,  John 
Adams,  Franklin,  Sherman,  and  R.  R.  Livingston 
were  chosen  as  the  committee  to  have  charge  of  pre 
paring  this  important  document.  And  in  the  hope 
of  influencing  Dickinson  and  Morris,  who  contended 
for  the  making  of  foreign  alliances  and  a  confedera 
tion  in  advance  of  declaring  independence,  commit 
tees  to  prepare  a  plan  of  treaties  to  be  proposed  to 
foreign  powers,  and  to  draft  articles  of  confedera 
tion,  were  selected  on  the  twelfth.  Significant  of  the 
great  awakening  in  the  Congress  that  these  debates 
occasioned,  as  of  the  necessity  for  a  more  orderly 
conduct  of  military  affairs,  which  passing  events  dis 
closed,  is  the  institution  on  this  same  day  of  the 
most  important  permanent  organization  within  the 
Congress,  the  board  of  war  and  ordnance — a  pro 
posal  for  the  creation  of  which  had  laid  on  the  desk 
unacted  upon  for  nearly  two  months.2 

Turning  now  to  what  was  happening  in  the  mid 
dle  colonies,  we  discover  everywhere  discussion  of 
and  action  on  the  great  question.  The  resolution 
of  the  Congress  of  May  15  had  proved,  as  was  in 
tended,  of  immediate  effect  in  Philadelphia  in  spur 
ring  on  the  elements  dissatisfied  with  the  unchanged 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  June  10,  1776. 

2  The  Committee  on  establishing  a  War  Office  had  reported 
on  April   18,  Journal  of  Congress. 


IO8         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

attitude  of  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly.  On  the 
twentieth  of  that  month  a  general  gathering  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  City  and  Liberties,  to  the  num 
ber,  it  is  said,  of  7,000,  presided  over  by  one  of  the 
most  disgruntled  and  influential  of  the  radicals, 
Col.  Daniel  Roberdeau,  protested  against  the  Assem 
bly's  competency  to  form  a  new  government,  and 
resolved  that  a  convention  should  be  chosen  by  the 
people  for  that  purpose.1  These  resolutions  were 
sent  out  to  the  committees  of  the  counties  of  the 
province,  and  June  18  was  named  as  the  day 
on  which  a  provincial  conference  should  meet 
in  Philadelphia  to  determine  upon  the  method  of 
electing  members  to  a  convention  to  establish  the  new 
form  of  government,  recommended  by  the  Con 
tinental  Congress.  The  tottering  Assembly  in  the 
meantime  was  having  difficulty  in  getting  a  quorum 
together,  though  this  was  finally  obtained  on  May 
22.  They  did  little  more  for  the  next  few  days 
than  listen  to  elaborate  addresses  presented  by  the 
radical  and  conservative  inhabitants  respectively,  the 
one  demanding  that  no  action  be  taken  upon  the 
resolution  of  the  Congress  of  May  15,  and  the  other 
that  the  old  instructions  to  the  delegates  against  in 
dependence  be  adhered  to.  On  the  fifth  of  June 
they  listened  to  the  reading  of  Virginia's  resolu 
tions  transmitted  by  the  convention  of  that  colony, 

1  Lincoln,  Revolutionary  Movement  in  Pennsylvania,  255. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE    MAKING  I  Op 

and,  by  a  large  majority,  decided  to  appoint  a  com 
mittee,  with  Dickinson  as  chairman,  to  prepare  new 
instructions  to  the  delegates  in  the  Congress.  These 
were  adopted  on  the  eighth,  but  not  signed  by  the 
speaker  until  the  day,  June  14,  on  which  the  old 
Assembly  passed  forever  out  of  existence,  by  reason 
of  the  impossibility  of  reconciling  the  conservative 
spirit  of  its  members  with  the  revolutionary  ideas 
prevailing  among  large  numbers  of  the  people,  who 
had  taken  affairs  into  their  own  hands.  The  in 
structions  tried  to  effect  a  compromise  when  the 
time  for  compromises  was  long  past,  and  conse 
quently  displeased  the  conservatives  who  thought 
they  went  too  far,  and  were  unsatisfactory  to  the 
radicals,  because  they  did  not  go  far  enough.  While 
specifically  authorizing  the  delegates  to  enter  into 
a  confederation  and  to  make  treaties  with  foreign 
powers,  they  dodged  the  main  issue,  independence, 
by  merely  bestowing  the  power  to  concur  in  adopt 
ing  such  other  measures  as  were  judged  necessary. 
In  such  a  crisis  plain  speaking  was  required,  and  no 
resort  to  subterfuges  would  answer.  Accordingly, 
when  the  Conference  of  Committees  came  together 
on  the  eighteenth  of  June,  under  the  presidency  of  the 
active  Thomas  McKean,  a  member  of  the  Congress, 
though  having  no  power  to  instruct  the  delegates, 
they  unanimously  expressed  the  willingness  to  con 
cur  in  a  vote  of  the  Congress  declaring  the  colonies 


HO         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

free  and  independent  states.1  Thus  ended  the 
struggle  for  authority  to  declare  independence  in 
Pennsylvania,  as  a  result  of  which  the  colony  was 
so  rent  asunder  that  it  took  many  years  to  recover 
from  the  effects. 

We  miss  from  this  record  the  familiar  name  of 
Franklin,  who  throughout  the  first  six  months  had 
been  as  much  the  leader  of  the  radicals  as  Dickinson 
of  the  moderates.  He  was  not  now  holding  aloof 
from  choice,  but  fallen  a  victim  to  the  racking 
twinges  of  the  gout,  was  kept  from  "  Congress  & 
Company  "  for  nearly  all  of  the  first  three  weeks  of 
June.  If  the  void  left  by  his  absence  could  have 
been  filled,  Thomas  McKean  was  at  hand  for  this. 
Not  content  with  taking  a  leading  part  in  fashion 
ing  Pennsylvania's  affairs,  he  went  through  the 
counties  of  Delaware  and  by  his  personal  exertions 
swung  her  into  line  for  independence  on  June  I4,2 
the  wording  of  the  Philadelphia  conference,  with 
which  he  had  so  much  to  do,  being  used.  It  must  be 
remembered,  when  we  wonder  how  a  Pennsylvanian 
could  have  been  permitted  to  interfere  in  Delaware, 
that  Pennsylvania  men  and  measures  were  not  then 
so  separated  from  Delaware's  politics  as  now. 

Some  measure  of  the  extent  of  the  changes 
wrought  in  New  Jersey  by  the  revolution,  is  revealed 

1  Force,  4th,  VI,  963. 

2  Life  and  Correspondence  of  George  Read,  165;  Force,  4th, 
VI,  884;  Frothingham's  Rise  of  the  Republic,  523. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE    MAKING  III 

by  the  fact  that  of  the  men  who  met  in  Provincial 
Congress  at  Burlington  on  June  10,  but  six  had 
been  members  of  the  assembly  of  that  colony  which 
had  met  for  the  last  time  in  November  of  the  prev 
ious  year.  There  as  in  Maryland,  matters  were 
complicated  by  the  presence  of  a  popular  governor, 
William  Franklin,  who,  though  out  of  touch  with 
the  Provincial  Congress,  still  had  the  support  of  a 
large  body  of  the  population.  To  deprive  him  of 
further  influence  to  delay  agreement  upon  inde 
pendence  it  was  thought  best  to  get  him  out  of  the 
colony,  but  he  and  his  party  were  so  strong  that  the 
Provincial  Congress  were  not  willing  to  undertake 
his  banishment  without  the  authority  and  assistance 
of  the  Continental  Congress,  as  "  the  countenance 
and  approbation  of  the  Continental  Congress  would 
satisfy  some  persons  who  might  otherwise  be  dis 
posed  to  blame  "  them.1  The  Congress,  on  the  look 
out  for  a  chance  to  shape  the  course  of  events,  es 
pecially  in  a  colony  that  had  not  yet  rescinded  its 
old  instructions  against  independence,  responded  im 
mediately  upon  the  receipt  of  this  appeal.  Direct 
ing  the  examination  of  the  governor,  if  as  a  result 
it  was  decided  that  he  should  be  confined,  the 
Congress  stood  ready  to  name  the  place,  "  they  con 
curring  in  the  sentiment  .  .  .  that  it  would  be 

1  Letter  of  the  New  Jersey  Congress  to  Continental  Congress, 
June  1 8,  1776,  Force,  4th,  VI,  1624. 


112         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

improper  to  confine  him  in  that  colony."  Before 
another  week  went  round,  Governor  Franklin  was 
ordered,  by  the  Congress,  to  be  sent  to  Connecticut.1 
Four  days  after  New  Jersey's  first  appeal,  the 
Provincial  Congress — having,  one  June  21,  declared 
itself  in  favor  of  forming  a  new  government  pur 
suant  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Congress — 
voted  new  instructions  to  the  delegates  in  the  Con 
gress,  by  which  they  were  authorized  to  join  in  de 
claring  independence,  in  making  a  confederation, 
and  in  contracting  foreign  alliances.  In  all  this 
the  hand  of  Jonathan  D.  Sergeant  is  visible.  He, 
like  McKean,  was  also  a  member  of  the  Congress 
and  knew  well  the  temper  of  the  majority  of  that 
body,  though  he  had  not  for  some  weeks  been  in 
his  place  in  Independence  Chamber.  His  person 
ality  looms  almost  as  large  in  the  events  that  brought 
about  the  adhesion  of  New  Jersey  to  the  new  doc 
trine,  as  McKean's  in  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware, 
Jay's  in  New  York,  and  Chase's  in  Maryland. 

Chase  returned  from  the  mission  he  was  sent  on 
to  Canada  too  late  by  one  day  to  take  part  in  the  de 
bates  held  in  the  Congress.  But  this  enforced  silence 
served  to  make  his  pen  all  the  more  active  when  he 
learned  how  necessary  it  was  for  the  cause  of  inde 
pendence,  to  turn  Maryland  about.  The  Convention 
of  that  colony  had  adjourned  on  May  25,  in  angry 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  June  19,  24,  1776. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE   MAKING  113 

mood  at  the  Congress  for  its  interference  in  her 
affairs,  and  was  not  to  reassemble  until  the  follow 
ing  August.  But  the  requisitions  for  troops,  made 
by  the  Congress,  rendered  it  necessary  for  the  Coun 
cil  of  Safety  to  call  the  Convention  to  meet  at  An 
napolis  on  June  21.  That  same  day  they  instructed 
their  deputies  in  Philadelphia  to  ask  for  leave  of 
absence  to  attend  the  Convention,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  make  an  agreement  to  postpone  considera 
tion  of  the  questions  of  independence,  foreign 
alliances  and  confederation  until  their  return.1  The 
Congress,  however,  would  not  listen  to  any  proposal 
for  deferring  the  vote,  as  it  was  public  property 
that  this  would  take  place  on  July  I,  and  the  country 
was  expectant.2  Meantime,  Chase,  as  he  put  it, 
had  "  not  been  idle."  He  had  appealed  in  writing 
to  every  county  committee,  and  one  after  the  other 
they  were  directing  their  representatives  in  the  Con 
vention  to  vote  for  new  instructions  to  the  delegates 
in  the  Congress.  And  in  winning  over  the  members 
of  the  Convention  to  his  way  of  thinking  he  received 
able  support  from  Charles  Carroll,  of  Carrollton, 
his  companion  on  the  mission  to  Canada.  Just  a 
week  after  the  Convention  met,  the  fruit  of  their 
toil  was  manifested  in  the  unanimous  resolve, 
passed  late  at  night,  directing  Maryland's  delegates 

1  Proc.  Md.   Conventions,   166. 

2  John  Adams'  Works,  IX,  413. 

8 


1 14         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

to  join  with  the  other  colonies  in  voting  in  favor  of 
independence.1  Immediately  after  this  decision  was 
reached,  Chase  wrote  to  John  Adams,  in  triumph : 
"  I  am  this  moment  from  the  House  to  procure  an 
Express  to  follow  the  Post  with  an  Unan :  vote  of 
our  Convention  for  Independence  etc.  etc. — see  the 
glorious  effects  of  County  Instructions — our  people 
have  fire  if  not  smothered."2  Without  his  oppor 
tune  exertions  it  is  safe  to  say  that  Maryland  would 
have  lagged  behind  many  weeks  longer. 

Excepting  only  New  York,  each  of  the  middle 
colonies,  spurred  on  by  the  persistent  agitation  of 
some  member  of  the  Congress,  before  the  month 
was  out,  in  one  way  or  another  had  given  to  its 
delegates  the  authority  that  was  so  much  desired, 
and  which  was  all  important,  if  independence  was  to 
bQ  proclaimed  as  the  unanimous  act  of  the  colonies. 
As  for  the  remainder  of  the  country  there  was 
doubt  about  only  one  other  colony,  South  Carolina. 
For  in  response  to  the  repeated  demands  of  their 
delegates,  Connecticut  and  New  Hampshire  had 
taken  action  on  June  14  and  15  respectively3  And, 
though  the  assemblies  of  Massachusetts  and  Rhode 
Island4  had  not  instructed  in  precise  terms,  the 

1  Proc.  Md.  Conventions,  176. 

2  John  Adams'  Works,  III,  56. 
8  Force,  4th,  VI,  868,  1030. 

4  See  p.  92  supra. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN    THE    MAKING  11$ 

voice  of  the  people  within  their  borders  was  calling 
so  loudly  for  the  proclaiming  of  independence,  that 
none  could  have  any  doubt  how  the  votes  of  their 
representatives  would  be  cast.  All  knew,  also, 
how  stood  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Georgia. 
But  a  question  in  the  minds  of  many  as  the  fateful 
day  approached,  was  "  How  would  South  Carolina 
and  New  York  decide  ?  "  No  more  definite  word 
had  issued  from  the  former  than  that  spoken  more 
than  three  months  before,  when  her  delegates  were 
empowered  to  join  with  a  majority  of  the  other 
colonies  in  executing  such  measures  as  would  pro 
mote  the  best  interests  of  that  colony  in  particular, 
and  America  in  general.  None  familiar  with  the 
political  situation  in  South  Carolina  at  the  time  these 
instructions  were  passed  by  her  Provincial  Congress 
can,  in  fairness,  construe  them  as  an  authorization 
to  vote  for  independence.1  But  in  the  three  months 
interval  the  aggressive,  efficient,  local  minority  favor 
ing  independence  had  been  as  active  in  beating  down 
the  opposition  (or  at  least  in  gaining  control  of  the 
administrative  machinery),  as  had  been  that  other 
minority,  with  success  so  marked,  in  the  Continental 
Congress.  If  her  instructions  had  not  been  rend 
ered  more  explicit,  the  conditions  had  certainly  un 
dergone  a  change,  and  it  was  for  South  Carolina's 

1  See    McCrady,   South    Carolina   in    the   Revolution.     Also 
p.  100  supra. 


Il6         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

delegates  in  the  Congress  to  determine  whether 
these  were  so  altered  as  to  serve  as  warrant  for 
joining  their  vote  to  that  of  the  majority. 

New  York,  much  divided  in  her  counsels  by  local 
political  and  religious  dissensions  of  long  standing, 
as  by  the  presence  of  a  large  body  of  Tory  sym 
pathizers,  the  effects  of  which  had  colored  all  her 
acts  in  the  past,  had  shown  as  yet  no  inclination  to 
make  haste  in  reaching  a  decision.  It  would  well 
repay  us  to  go  into  the  history  of  the  complex  condi 
tions  in  that  colony,  but  we  would  thereby  be  car 
ried  too  far  afield.1  And,  though  there  was  anxious 
waiting  to  hear  what  would  be  her  attitude,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  she  occupied  not  nearly  so  large 
nor  so  critical  a  place  as  Pennsylvania,  nor  wielded 
so  much  influence.  Therefore,  after  it  was  known 
how  Pennsylvania  would  in  all  probability  vote, 
New  York's  position  was  not  so  important  in  the 
councils  of  the  Congress,  so  far  as  independence 
was  concerned,  as  it  would  have  been  had  there 
still  been  doubt  of  Pennsylvania.  Reliance,  too,  was 
placed  upon  the  influence  that  the  large  increases 
in  the  army  soon  to  be  gathered  about  New  York, 
would  have  in  shaping  opinion  in  favor  of  the 

1  For  the  details  of  New  York's  complex  political  affairs 
see  Flick,  Loyalism  in  New  York,  passim,  Van  Tyne's  Loyal 
ists  in  the  Am.  Rev.,  Chapter  V,  and  for  the  earlier  period, 
Dr.  Becker's  valuable  studies  in  Am.  Hist.  Rev.  and  Pol.  Sci. 
Quarterly. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE    MAKING  1 1/ 

Congress's  decrees.  Suffice  it,  therefore,  for  our 
purposes  to  record  that  on  May  31  resolutions  were 
passed  by  her  Provincial  Congress  respecting  the 
recommendation  of  the  Congress  of  May  15.  They 
were  to  the  effect  that  having  doubts  as  to  the 
authority  of  the  Provincial  Congress  to  deal  with  so 
important  a  subject  as  instituting  a  new  form  of 
government,  the  people  were  to  be  given  the  oppor 
tunity  of  determining  this  matter.  The  electors  in 
the  several  counties  of  the  colony  were  recom 
mended  to  hold  a  special  election  of  deputies 
(in  the  manner  and  form  prescribed  for  the  election 
of  the  existing  Congress)  to  a  Congress  that  should 
meet  in  New  York  on  the  second  Monday  in  July. 
The  deputies  thus  elected  were  to  be  understood  as 
being  thereby  authorized  to  form  a  new  government 
if  they  deemed  it  wise,  which  was  "  to  continue  in 
force  until  a  future  peace  with  Great  Britain  shall 
render  the  same  unnecessary."1  There  was  nothing 
in  this  that  could  seriously  offend  the  sensibilities 
of  those  still  conservatively  inclined,  for  in  spite  of 
the  declaration  that  the  people  should  determine  the 
question,  the  ultimate  decision  was  left  in  the  hands 
of  the  Provincial  Congress. 

Immediately  after  the  vote  in  the  Continental 
Congress  on  independence,  on  June  8,  four  of  the 
New  York  delegates  then  in  Philadelphia,  sent  an 

1  Force,  4th,  VI,  1352. 


Il8        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

express  to  their  Provincial  Congress  telling  them 
that  a  vote  on  independence  could  be  expected  to 
be  had  soon  and  asking  for  instructions.  Three 
days  later  the  Provincial  Congress  passed  resolu 
tions  recommending  the  electors  and  freeholders 
to  instruct  the  representatives,  for  whom  they  were 
to  vote  at  the  ensuing  election,  respecting  the  atti 
tude  they  should  hold  on  the  question  of  independ 
ence.  But  at  the  same  time,  with  striking  incon 
sistency,  they  voted  not  to  publish  these  resolutions 
until  after  the  election  had  taken  place.1  Desiring 
to  explain  this  paradoxical  action  to  the  delegates 
at  Philadelphia,  the  letter  in  which  the  information 
was  conveyed  served  only  to  confuse  them  the  more. 
They  were  told  that  the  Provincial  Congress  was 
unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  the  instructions 
did  not  authorize  them  "  to  give  the  sense  of  this 
colony  on  the  question  of  declaring  it  to  be,  and 
continue,  an  independent  state," — a  fact  that  was 
so  well  understood  by  the  delegates  as  not  to  need 
affirmation  by  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Pro 
vincial  Congress.  Further,  they  said  they  did  not 
feel  inclined  to  instruct  on  that  point,  as  the 
majority  held  they  had  no  authority  so  to  do; 
and  they  were  fearful  to  ask  the  opinion  of  the 
people  at  that  time,  lest  it  might  interfere  with  the 
elections  that  were  to  determine  the  question  of  a 

1  Force,  4th,  VI,  1396. 


INDEPENDENCE   IN   THE   MAKING  IIQ 

new  form  of  government.1  In  plain  words,  they 
wanted  to  insure  their  own  reelection  to  power,  did 
not  want  to  take  any  steps  that  might  put  this  re 
sult  in  jeopardy,  nor  add  to  the  numerous  complica 
tions  that  already  had  arisen,  and  had,  therefore, 
decided  to  postpone  action  on  independence  until 
the  new  convention  met.  The  perplexed  delegates 
in  Philadelphia  were  thus  left  suspended  in  mid-air. 
And  to  add  to  their  difficulties,  they  had  doubts 
how  to  vote  after  independence  was  declared, 
when  measures,  the  outcome  of  such  action,  were 
up  for  consideration.2  In  the  meantime,  the  ap 
proach  of  the  British  army  to  New  York  caused  the 
Provincial  Congress  to  adjourn,  on  June  30,  to  meet 
at  White  Plains  on  July  8,  so  that  at  this  crucial 
period,  the  delegates  in  Philadelphia  were  left  with 
out  an  authority  to  whom  they  might  appeal  for 
directions,  until  the  vote  on  independence  had  taken 
place.  On  the  tenth  of  July  the  deputies,  just  elected 
under  the  terms  of  the  resolution  of  May  31,  met  at 
White  Plains,  resolved  themselves  into  a  convention 
and  listened  to  the  reading  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence.  The  question  of  taking  some  stand 
was  thus  forced  upon  them,  and  a  committee  with 
Jay  as  chairman  was  selected  to  suggest  suitable 
action.  Since  the  discovery  of  Tryon's  plot  against 

1  Force,  4tli,  VI,  814. 

2  Ibid.,    1212. 


I2O        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Washington  a  considerable  change  of  opinion  had 
come  over  enough  of  the  members  to  form  a  ma 
jority,  and  they  saw  that  only  radical  measures 
could  counteract  the  influence  of  the  Tories,  and 
the  presence  of  the  British  army.  Therefore, 
on  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  they  reported 
resolutions,  which  were  unanimously  adopted,  ap 
proving  the  declaration  of  the  Continental  Con 
gress  and  pledging  themselves  to  support  it;  the 
final  act  being  played  on  July  15,  when  these  resolu 
tions  were  read  before  the  Continental  Congress, 
thereby  rendering  it  possible  to  give  the  engrossed 
copy  the  title  of  "  The  unanimous  Declaration  of 
the  thirteen  united  States  of  America." 


CHAPTER   VI 
ADOPTING  AND  SIGNING  THE  DECLARATION 

While  the  colonies  were  thus  preparing  for  the 
final  day,  the  committee,  to  whom  had  been  entrusted 
the  difficult  and  exacting  task  of  framing  a  declara 
tion  suitable  to  serve  as  introductory  to  and  in  justi 
fication  of  the  resolution  of  independence,  had  con 
cluded  its  work.  On  Friday,  the  twenty-eighth 
of  June,  the  document  in  Jefferson's  handwriting, 
after  being  read  before  the  Congress,  was  laid  on 
the  table.  Had  Jefferson  alone,  without  opportunity 
to  consult  his  associates,  received  the  mandate  of 
the  Congress  to  draw  up  such  a  paper,  it  would  have 
differed  in  no  essential  detail  from  that  handed  in. 
For  not  only  was  it  the  product  of  his  pen,  but  it 
bears  the  stamp  of  his  master  mind  in  every  phrase. 
At  the  first  meeting  of  the  committee  he  had  been  re 
quested  to  undertake  the  preparation  of  the  docu 
ment.  Upon  its  completion  he  submitted  it  sepa 
rately  to  Adams  and  Franklin,  who  made  only  a 
few  verbal  alterations,  and  it  was  then  reported  to 
the  full  committee.  Sherman  and  Livingston  ap 
parently  performed  no  service  beyond  lending  their 
approval.1  As  chairman  of  the  committee  it  was 

ll  have  followed  Jefferson's  account  (Works,  I,  24-27)   as 
the  only  nearly  contemporary  version.     It  is  but  fair  to  add, 
121 


122         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Jefferson's  right  to  draw  up  the  report,  and  his  col 
leagues'  request  overcame  any  reluctance  he  may 
have  had  to  enter  upon  so  important  an  undertak 
ing. 

The  last  two  days  of  June  happened  to  fall  on 
Saturday  and  Sunday.  As  the  Congress  had  decided 
a  short  time  before,  to  hold  no  sessions  on  these  days, 
in  order  that  the  hard  pressed  committees  might  have 
some  leisure  in  which  to  consult  upon  the  work  given 
over  to  them,  consideration  of  the  Declaration  went 
over  until  the  next  session,  on  July  I.  At  nine 
o'clock  the  Congress  met,  and,  as  if  these  events  had 
been  predesigned  to  render  the  day  more  solemn 
still,  it  heard  from  New  Jersey's  Convention  that 
Howe  was  at  Sandy  Hook,  and  that  some  fifty  Brit 
ish  sail  of  the  line  had  been  sighted;  and  learned 
from  Washington  of  the  unearthing  of  a  serious  con 
spiracy  instigated  by  the  Mayor  of  New  York  and 
Governor  Tryon.  With  his  accustomed  reserve, 
Washington  intimated  by  no  word  that  the  danger 
to  himself  was  of  any  consequence,  though  we  may 
gather  from  other  sources  that  nothing  short  of  his 
own  assassination  was  aimed  at.  But  some  slight  re 
lief  was  obtained  from  reflecting  upon  such  de- 

however,  that  Adams  in  his  autobiography,  written  many  years 
later,  differs  as  to  details.  Naturally,  as  a  result  of  the 
greater  clamor  that  by  that  time  surrounded  the  Declaration, 
he  exaggerated  the  part  he  had  played  in  its  preparation.  See 
Works  of  John  Adams,  III,  512  et  seq. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         123 

pressing  intelligence,  when  the  welcome  resolution 
of  Maryland's  Convention  was  made  known  to  all, 
disclosing  that  another  vote  was  sure  to  be  added 
to  the  majority  favoring  independence.1 

After  reading  the  order  of  the  day,  the  considera 
tion  of  the  resolution  upon  independence  was  pro 
ceeded  with  in  committee  of  the  whole,  with  Harri 
son  of  Virginia  in  the  chair.  The  Declaration  was 
referred  to  this  committee  also,  but  was  not  under 
discussion  until  the  following  day,  July  2,  when  the 
resolution  had  been  disposed  of.  As  Hancock  was 
the  permanent  president  of  the  Congress,  so  Harri 
son  may  be  regarded  as  its  permanent  chairman  of 
the  committee  of  the  whole.  He  had  served  in  that 
capacity  for  many  months,  the  Congress  by  this 
means  aiming  to  restore  to  Virginia  her  weight  of 
prominence  in  the  colonial  balance,  that  had  been 
lost  to  Massachusetts  by  Hancock's  election  to  the 
presidency.  Great  debates  were  on  once  again,  and 
for  the  final  time,  and  engrossed  the  attention  of  the 
Congress  for  the  entire  day  (July  i).  Relying  as 
we  must,  upon  accounts  written  many  years  after 
ward,  when  memories  proved  treacherous,  it  would 
appear,  nevertheless,  that  John  Adams  and  John 
Dickinson  again  stepped  forth  as  principal  cham 
pions  for  and  against  the  adoption  of  Lee's  reso 
lution  declaring  independence. 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  July  i,  1776.     See  p.  113  supra. 


124         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

John  Adams  tells  us  that  he  made  his  speech  for 
the  benefit  and  at  the  desire  of  the  newly  arrived 
New  Jersey  delegates,  who  had  not  been  present  on 
the  seventh  and  eighth  of  June,  and  had  therefore 
missed  the  earlier  debates.1  But  of  the  words  he 
then  uttered  no  trace  remains.  In  these  circum 
stances  we  can  only  state  that  he  recapitulated  argu 
ments  made  "  twenty  times  before,"  all  of  which,  he 
thought,  was  "  an  idle  misspence  of  time,  for  noth 
ing  was  said  but  what  had  been  repeated  and  hack 
neyed  in  that  room  before,  a  hundred  times  for  six 
months  past."2  That  he  delivered  a  speech,  how 
ever,  of  unusual  force  and  brilliancy  is  certain,  and 
that  it  had  considerable  influence  upon  the  minds  of 
some  who  still  were  undecided  how  to  act,  is  quite 
beyond  doubt. 

For  the  precise  contribution  of  Dickinson  on  this 
important  occasion,  we  are  equally  at  a  loss.  But 
if  there  is  no  record  of  his  words,  we  have  by  way 
of  substitute  the  opinions  he  held  at  that  time,  set 
down  by  his  own  hand  six  years  and  a  half  later, 
which  Bancroft  has  taken  the  liberty  of  dressing  up 
to  give  them  the  appearance  of  the  speech  he  is 
known  to  have  delivered.  Dickinson  would  have  us 
believe  that  his  opposition  was  based  on  the  inad- 
visability  of  issuing  a  declaration  of  independence 

1  Works,  III,  58. 

2  Ibid.,  IX,  415. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         125 

at  that  time.  "  The  right  and  authority  of  Congress 
to  make  it,  the  justice  of  making  it  I  acknowledged. 
The  policy  of  then  making  it  I  disputed."  He  would 
have  had  the  Congress  await  the  result  of  some  de 
cisive  battle,  upon  which,  and  not  upon  the  Declara 
tion,  would  depend  procuring  foreign  aid;  and  he 
believed  that  "  the  formation  of  our  governments, 
and  an  agreement  upon  the  terms  of  our  confedera 
tion,  ought  to  precede  the  assumption  of  our  station 
among  sovereigns."  To  his  mind  the  logical  order 
was,  first,  the  creation  of  local  governments,  to  be 
followed  by  a  confederation,  and  then  independence. 
The  importance  of  a  confederation  rested  on  the 
security  it  would  give  to  the  weaker  colonies,  against 
the  dangers  of  having  disadvantageous  terms  im 
posed  on  them  by  the  stronger.  These  are  the  main 
points  on  which  he  based  his  arguments,  as  contained 
in  the  elaborate  vindication  of  his  career  contributed, 
appropriately  enough,  to  Freeman's  Journal  in  I783.1 
It  is  altogether  probable  that  others  participated 
in  the  discussion  on  this  day,  for  the  sitting  was 
protracted  until  late  in  the  afternoon,  but  we  have 
no  authentic  statements  of  anything  that  was  said. 
The  debate  having  run  its  course,  and  the  vote  being 
taken,  it  was  discovered  that  all  New  England,  New 
Jersey,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and 


Vindication  is  to  be  found  in  Stille's  Dickinson,  Ap 
pendix  V. 


126         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Georgia  favored  the  resolution,  and  South  Caro 
lina  and  Pennsylvania  voted  against  it.  Delaware's 
ballot  went  for  naught,  since  McKean  favored  and 
George  Read  opposed  it,  and  New  York's  delegates 
decided  that  the  only  course  they  could  pursue  was 
to  refrain  from  voting.  Nine  colonies  thus  regis- 
/  tered  themselves  as  willing  to  cast  off  the  yoke,  an 
overwhelming  majority  to  be  sure,  yet  far  from  the 
unanimity  which  had  been  hoped  for  and  worked 
for.  As  soon  as  Harrison,  in  his  capacity  of  chair 
man  of  the  committee  of  the  whole,  reported  the 
decision  to  the  Congress,  Edward  Rutledge  of  South 
Carolina  again  exercised  the  privilege  of  having  the 
final  determination  postponed,  which  he  had  made 
use  of  on  June  10.  The  members,  however,  were 
now  so  eager  to  conclude  the  consideration  of  this 
momentous  subject  that  delay  was  voted  but  for  a 
day. 

The  position  of  the  South  Carolina  delegates 
was  extremely  embarrassing.  That  a  majority  of 
them,  under  Rutledge's  guidance,  favored  inde 
pendence,  there  can  be  no  question.  The  issue  now 
before  them,  however,  was  not  that  of  giving  ex 
pression  to  individual  opinion,  but  of  casting  the 
vote  of  the  colony  of  South  Carolina  as  the  major 
ity  of  her  people  would  have  desired.  If  the  view 
of  the  most  recent  historian  of  that  state  be  correct, 
there  was  not  only  a  decided  opposition  to  inde- 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION 

pendence  in  that  colony,  but  there  was  nothing  in 
the  history  of  the  relations  between  South  Carolina 
and  the  home  government  to  create  a  sentiment  in 
its  favor.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  South  Carolina 
delegates  in  the  Congress  were  confronted  with  the 
probability  that  when  the  final  vote  was  taken  no 
colony,  unless  it  be  their  own,  would  be  found  vot 
ing  in  the  negative.  They  were  naturally  reluctant 
to  incur  the  responsibility  of  thus  marking  theirs  as 
the  only  colony  to  stand  in  the  way  of  practical 
unanimity.  Therefore  they  took  ready  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  for  another  day's  delay,  which 
the  rules  allowed.  It  would  appear  that  Rutledge 
was  the  most  forward  among  them  and  the  boldest, 
that  he  bent  the  others  to  his  will,  and  made  them 
willing  to  cast  in  their  lot  with  the  rest  and  brave 
the  consequences  at  home.  Fortunately  for  them, 
we  are  told,  "  a  battle  had  been  fought,  a  British 
fleet  had  been  repulsed,  a  British  army  held  in  check, 
and  a  victory  won  in  Charlestown  harbor,  before  the 
news  of  their  action  in  Congress,"  was  known 
among  their  fellows.  All  this  changed  the  condi 
tion  of  parties  and  affairs,  and  gave  welcome  recep 
tion  to  the  intelligence  of  the  part  the  delegates  had 
played  in  the  drama  at  Philadelphia.2 

During  the  day's  interval,  McKean  of  Delaware 

1  McCrady,  5".   C.  in   the  Revolution,   1 72. 

2  Ibid.,  173-174. 


128         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

had  been  active  in  his  endeavor  to  get  an  additional 
delegate  from  his  colony  to  counterbalance  George 
Read's  opposition.  He  tells  us  that  he  sent  an  ex 
press-rider  at  his  own  expense  for  Caesar  Rodney 
to  Dover.  Riding  the  eighty  miles  at  post-haste, 
Rodney  was  met  by  McKean  at  the  State  House 
door  and  brought  into  Congress  in  his  boots,  just 
before  the  vote  was  taken.1  At  least  three  of  Penn 
sylvania's  delegates,  Dickinson,  Morris,  and  Wilson, 
were  in  as  sore  perplexity  as  those  of  South  Caro 
lina.  Bearing  credentials  from  the  Pennsylvania 
Assembly,  they  had  seen  its  authority  diminish 
gradually,  until  a  quorum  could  no  longer  be  ob 
tained,  and  it  had  now  passed  out  of  existence.  In 
its  stead  a  revolutionary  organization,  with  which 
they  had  no  sympathy,  had  assumed  control  of  Penn 
sylvania's  affairs.  The  Conference  of  Committees, 
just  organizing  into  a  convention  to  prepare  a  form 
of  government,  had  given  authority  to  vote  for  in 
dependence,  but  to  Wilson,  Dickinson,  and  Morris, 
this  Conference  had  not  itself  the  authority  which 
it  was  conferring  upon  others.  On  the  other  hand, 
as  far-seeing  men,  it  was  plain  to  them  that  the  old 
order  was  overturned,  its  vitality  gone,  with  little 
likelihood  of  its  revival.  Under  these  circum 
stances,  but  one  of  them,  Wilson,  rose  to  the  occa 
sion.  As  Dickinson  and  Morris  stayed  away  from 
1  Buchanan's  McKean  Family. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         I  2Q 

the  Congress  when  the  vote  was  taken,  Wilson 
decided  to  go  with  the  majority.  His  decision 
was  all-important,  for  without  his  vote  Pennsylva 
nia's  delegation  would  have  been  equally  divided 
and  her  vote  would  have  gone  for  naught.  Dick 
inson  in  spite  of  his  services  in  the  field  did  not  for 
many  years  recover  the  prestige  which  he  lost  at  this 
time.  Robert  Morris,  notwithstanding  that  he  was 
in  opposition  to  the  popular  desires,  is  the  only  mem 
ber  who  was  returned  to  the  Congress.  He  was 
thus  given  the  opportunity  to  serve  his  state  and  his 
country  in  so  signal  a  manner  in  after  years,  as  al 
most  to  obliterate  all  memory  of  his  antagonism  to 
independence.1 

Thus,  when  the  final  vote  was  taken  on  the  reso 
lution  on  the  morning  of  July  2,  but  three  votes,  so 
far  as  we  know,  were  cast  against  it — those  of  Will 
ing  and  Humphreys  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Read's  of 
Delaware.  But  Wilson,  Franklin,  and  Morton  out 
voted  Willing  and  Humphreys,  and  McKean  and 
Rodney  set  Read's  opposition  at  naught.  All  the 
other  colonies,  excepting  only  New  York,  whose 
delegates  abstained  from  taking  part,  voted  without 
a  dissenting  voice  for  the  resolution. 

This  out  of  the  way,  the  Congress  now  for  the 
first  time  undertook  to  consider,  in  committee  of  the 

1  See,  for  Morris's  own  statement  of  his  views,  his  letter 
to  Joseph  Reed,  July  20,  1776,  Reed's  Reed,  I,  201. 


I3O         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

whole,  Jefferson's  Declaration  which  was  to  serve  as 
justification  for  the  resolution  just  adopted.  For 
the  remainder  of  that  day  and  most  of  the  next  two, 
beginning  at  the  early  hour  of  nine  o'clock,  this  the 
most  picturesque  and  interesting  of  all  of  America's 
state  documents  was  under  consideration,  paragraph 
by  paragraph,  what  time  the  flying  camp  was  ordered 
out  both  to  protect  New  Jersey  and  stand  ready 
to  Washington's  call,  and  rations  of  rum  were  being 
voted  to  shipwrights  on  Lake  Champlain.  The  prin 
cipal  changes  resolved  upon  by  reason  of  this 
discussion  are  thus  described  by  Jefferson :  "  The 
pusillanimous  idea  that  we  had  friends  in  England 
worth  making  terms  with,  still  haunted  the  minds  of 
many.  For  this  reason  those  passages  which  con 
veyed  censures  on  the  people  of  England  were  struck 
out,  lest  they  should  give  them  offence.  The  clause, 
too,  reprobating  the  enslaving  the  inhabitants  of 
Africa,  was  struck  out  in  complaisance  to  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  who  had  never  attempted  to 
restrain  the  importation  of  slaves,  and  who  on  the 
contrary  still  wished  to  continue  it.  Our  Northern 
brethren  also  I  believe  felt  a  little  tender  under  these 
censures ;  for  though  their  people  have  very  few 
slaves  themselves,  yet  they  had  been  pretty  consider 
able  carriers  of  them  to  others."1 

The  first  of  the  paragraphs  he  had  in  mind  when 

1  Works,  I,  28. 


ADOPTING   AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION          13! 

penning  these  words,  reads :  "  and  when  occasions 
have  been  given  them,  by  the  regular  course  of  their 
laws,  of  removing  from  their  councils  the  disturbers 
of  our  harmony,  they  have  by  their  free  election  re 
established  them  in  power.  At  this  very  time  too 
they  are  permitting  their  chief  magistrate  to  send 
over  not  only  soldiers  of  our  common  blood,  but 
Scotch  and  foreign  mercenaries  to  invade  and  de 
stroy  us.  These  facts  have  given  the  last  stab  to 
agonizing  affection,  and  manly  spirit  bids  us  to  re 
nounce  forever  these  unfeeling  brethren.  We  must 
endeavor  to  forget  our  former  love  for  them,  and 
hold  them  as  we  hold  the  rest  of  mankind,  enemies 
in  war,  in  peace  friends.  We  might  have  been  a  free 
and  a  great  people  together ;  but  a  communication  of 
grandeur  and  of  freedom  it  seems  is  below  their 
dignity.  Be  it  so  since  they  will  have  it.  The  road 
to  happiness  and  to  glory  is  open  to  us  too,  we  will 
tread  it  apart  from  them.  ..."  These  sentences 
were  intended  to  be  inserted  in  the  paragraph  just 
before  that  beginning  "  We,  therefore,  the  Repre 
sentatives,"  and  were  to  follow  the  sentence,  "  They 
too  have  been  deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice  and  of  con 
sanguinity."  Their  excision  displays  no  pusillan 
imity,  as  Jefferson  would  have  it,  but  rather  a  better 
appreciation  of  the  necessity  for  the  retention  of 
essentials  and  the  discarding  of  dispensable  details. 


132         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

The  other  paragraph  had  reference  to  the  slave- 
trade  and  was  more  denunciatory  of  the  King  than 
any  of  the  remainder.  It  read :  "  he  has  waged  cruel 
war  against  human  nature  itself,  violating  its  most 
sacred  rights  of  life  and  liberty  in  the  persons  of  a 
distant  people  who  never  offended  him,  captivating 
and  carrying  them  into  slavery  in  another  hemi 
sphere,  or  to  incur  miserable  death  in  their  trans 
portation  thither.  This  piratical  warfare,  the  op 
probrium  of  infidel  powers,  is  the  warfare  of  this 
CHRISTIAN  king  of  Great  Britain  determined  to 
keep  open  a  market  where  MEN  should  be  bought 
and  sold.  He  has  prostituted  his  negative  for  sup 
pressing  every  legislative  attempt  to  prohibit  or  re 
strain  this  execrable  commerce.  And  that  this  as 
semblage  of  horrors  might  want  no  fact  of  distin 
guished  die,  he  is  now  exciting  those  very  people  to 
rise  in  arms  among  us,  and  to  purchase  that  liberty 
of  which  he  has  deprived  them,  by  murdering  the 
people  upon  whom  he  also  obtruded  them  :  thus  pay 
ing  off  former  crimes  committed  against  the  liberties 
of  one  people,  with  crimes  which  he  urges  them  to 
commit  against  the  lives  of  another."  This  is  un 
questionably  one  of  the  most  forcible  clauses  that 
issued  from  Jefferson's  pen,  and  its  rejection,  for  the 
reasons  which  he  ascribes,  served  to  promote  con 
sistency  of  action  on  the  part  of  the  colonies,  and 
prevent  the  forcing  of  an  issue  which  the  country 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         133 

was  not  yet  in  a  position  to  face.  But  its  omission 
was  a  serious  blow  to  Jefferson,  who  all  his  days 
was  a  firm  advocate  of  the  suppression  of  the  slave 
trade  and  of  slavery. 

The  remaining  changes  that  the  Declaration  under 
went,  were  for  the  most  part  verbal  and  slight,  and 
all  tended  in  the  direction  of  greater  precision  and 
terseness  of  expression.  Thus  concluded  in  com 
mittee  of  the  whole  on  the  afternoon  of  the  fourth, 
it  was  reported  to  the  Congress  by  Harrison,  was 
read  again,  and  received  the  final  sanction  of  the 
Congress  as  the  justification  for  the  act  that  estab 
lished  a  new  nation  among  the  powers  of  the  world. 

But1  three  of  the  many  state  documents  that  issued 
from  the  Continental  Congress,  during  the  nearly 
fifteen  years  of  its  existence,  were  regarded  as  of 
sufficient  importance  to  have  the  signatures  of  the 
members  appended :  the  Articles  of  Association,  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  Articles  of 
Confederation.  Together  they  form  the  funda 
mental  acts  of  union  previous  to  the  Constitution. 
The  first  two  were  of  the  nature  of  pledges  on  the 
part  of  the  colonies  to  support  one  another  in  the 

1Much  information  has  been  derived  in  the  preparation  of 
the  following  pages,  from  Judge  Mellen  Chamberlain's  essay 
on  the  Authentication  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  in 
the  volume,  "John  Adams,  etc.",  Boston,  1898.  But  the 
results  have  been  arrived  at  by  independent  researches  as 
well. 


134         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

fight  against  the  common  enemy,  and  the  last  was 
designed  to  be  an  instrument  by  which  the  federal 
relations  of  the  states  were  to  be  regulated.  Re 
specting  the  dates  on  which  the  Association  and  the 
Confederation  were  signed  no  question  has  ever 
been  raised.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  same 
statement  does  not  hold  regarding  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence.  Ever  rising  in  pictur 
esque  importance  as  the  most  familiar,  and  per 
haps  the  most  significant  of  the  acts  of  the 
time,  a  wealth  of  tradition  has  grown  up  about 
its  signing  and  promulgation.  Unfortunately  much 
of  this  is  false  and  meaningless,  notably  that  which 
connects  the  so-called  Liberty  Bell  with  the  events 
of  the  day.1  For  the  diffusion  of  the  popular  mis 
conception  respecting  the  signing  there  is  ample  war 
rant,  in  that  the  two  principal  sources  of  information 
which  should  be  authoritative,  are  misleading. 

1  With  the  rehabilitation  by  which  Independence  Hall 
profited  from  the  Centennial  year,  went  the  elevation  of  the 
bell  to  the  position  of  unwarranted  prominence  which  has 
since  that  time  become  more  marked  still.  There  is  no 
shadow  of  authority  even  for  associating  the  ringing  of  the 
bell  with  the  announcement  of  the  agreement  upon  independ 
ence.  The  mythical  legend  of  the  blue-eyed  boy  waiting  out 
side  the  door  to  give  the  signal  to  the  man  in  the  bell  tower  is 
the  product  of  the  fertile  imagination  of  one  of  Philadelphia's 
early  romancers,  George  Lippard,  who  first  gave  currency  to 
it  in  his  appropriately  called  "  Legends  of  the  Revolution, — • 
The  4th  of  July,  1776,"  391  et  seq. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         135 

They  are  an  incorrectly  printed  journal  of  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  Congress,  and  a  carelessly  composed 
heading  to  the  engrossed  document. 

To  understand  how  the  errors  crept  in  and  what 
they  signify,  it  is  necessary  to  have  before  us  the 
paragraphs  of  the  printed  Journal.  And  it  must  also 
be  borne  in  mind  that  the  proceedings  of  the  Con 
gress  for  the  year  1776  were  first  printed,  by  order 
of  the  Congress,  by  Robert  Aitken,  in  the  spring  of 
1777.  After  recording  that  the  Declaration  had 
been  agreed  to  in  committee  of  the  whole,  and  was 
reported  to  the  Congress,  this  sentence  occurs  in  the 
Journal  for  July  4 :  "  The  declaration  being  read 
was  agreed  to  as  follows."  The  declaration  is  then 
printed  in  its  proper  place,  but  in  larger  type  than 
that  used  for  the  remainder  of  the  entries.  After  its 
conclusion  and  in  the  ordinary  type,  we  find  the  sen 
tence,  "  The  foregoing  declaration  was  by  order  of 
Congress  engrossed  and  signed  by  the  following 
members,"  followed  by  fifty-five  names,  headed  by 
Hancock's,  the  remainder  being  arranged  in  single 
column,1  in  geographical  order  beginning  with  New 
Hampshire  and  ending  with  Georgia.  This  entry 
has  been  the  occasion  of  most  of  the  confusion  of 
subsequent  years.  Though  the  statement  is  not  made 

1  This  is  the  arrangement  in  the  Aitken  edition  of  the  Jour 
nal,  Philadelphia,  1777.  In  some  of  the  later  editions  the 
signatures  were  in  double  columns. 


136         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

that  the  members  signed  on  the  date  under  which 
their  names  are  entered,  and  it  is  a  well-known  fact 
that  more  than  a  fourth  of  the  members  whose  names 
appear  were  not  present  on  that  day,  some  of  them 
not  even  being  members  at  that  time,  none  the  less 
the  fact  that  the  names  appear  with  the  proceedings 
of  July  4,  has  caused  the  popular  error  to  creep  in 
which  couples  the  signing  and  the  adoption  of  the 
document  as  events  of  the  same  date. 

For  a  full  elucidation  of  this  matter,  it  is  neces 
sary  to  reproduce  the  subsequent  entries  bearing 
upon  the  signing  and  official  promulgation  of  the 
document.  On  the  same  day  (July  4)  the  printed 
Journal  informs  us  that  a  resolution  was  adopted 
to  send  copies  of  the  document  to  the  several  as 
semblies,  conventions,  and  committees  or  councils  of 
safety,  to  the  commanding  officers  of  the  continental 
troops;  and  to  have  it  proclaimed  in  each  of  the 
United  States1  and  at  the  head  of  the  army.  On 
the  i  Qth,  four  days  after  it  was  made  known  to  the 
Congress  that  New  York  had  given  her  tardy  as 
sent  to  the  wishes  of  the  remainder,  it  was  deter 
mined  to  have  the  Declaration  "  passed  on  the  4th, 
.  .  .  fairly  engrossed  on  parchment,  with  the  title 
and  style  of  'The  Unanimous  Declaration  of  the 
Thirteen  United  States  of  America';  and  that  the 

1  This  is  the  first  use  of  the  phrase  "  United  States  "  after 
the  Declaration. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION 


same,  when  engrossed,  be  signed  by  every  member 
of  Congress."  On  the  second  of  August  the  Jour 
nal  records  that  "  The  Declaration  of  Independence, 
being  engrossed,  and  compared  at  the  table,  was 
signed  by  the  members."  These  last  two  entries 
appear  in  print  only  in  the  Secret  Journal,  first  pub 
lished  in  1821,  as  if  it  was  the  intention  thereby  to 
protect  for  a  time  the  members  who  subscribed  their 
names  to  an  act  that  would  have  rendered  them 
liable  to  trial  for  treason,  if  the  revolution  had  been 
suppressed  by  the  British  government.  And,  fur 
ther,  the  first  official  reference  to  signing  the  De 
claration,  coming  as  it  does  two  weeks  after  its 
adoption,  would  seem  to  indicate,  also,  that  the  idea 
of  thus  consummating  the  act  was  an  afterthought. 
On  the  8th  of  January  of  the  following  year, 
when  the  approach  of  the  British  to  Philadel 
phia  had  rendered  it  necessary  to  transfer  tem 
porarily  the  scene  of  activities  to  Baltimore,  the 
Congress  agreed  for  the  first  time  to  have  an  au 
thentic  copy  of  the  Declaration  printed  with  the 
names  of  the  members  who  had  subscribed  it,  and 
to  send  one  to  each  of  the  states  with  the  re 
quest  "  to  have  the  same  put  upon  record."1  The 

1  This  was  the  first  issue  of  the  Declaration  giving  the 
names  of  the  signers.  It  was  printed  at  "  Baltimore  in  Mary 
land,  by  Mary  Katharine  Goddard."  Copies  of  this  broadside 
are  very  rare,  the  only  k~own  copies  being  in  the  New  York 
Public  Library  (Lenox),  the  Boston  Public  Library,  and 
among  the  archives  of  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  cxlii,  23. 


138         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

records  as  reproduced  above  are  the  only  references 
to  the  Declaration  in  the  printed  Journal  subsequent 
to  July  4. 

Turning  now  to  the  original  manuscripts,  we  find 
in  the  entry  for  July  4  a  significant  disagreement 
with  the  printed  Journal.  In  the  first  place  there 
are  two  manuscript  Journals  among  the  volumes  of 
the  Continental  Congress  papers,  now  deposited  in 
the  Library  of  Congress,  covering  the  proceedings 
of  that  day.  One  is  known  as  the  Rough  Journal, 
and  the  other  as  the  Transcript.  From  the  latter, 
as  indicated  by  a  note  in  the  handwriting  of  Charles 
Thomson,  the  Journal  was  printed.  But  in  neither 
is  to  be  found  a  copy  of  the  Declaration  with  the 
signatures  of  the  members  appended,  nor  any  copy 
of  the  signatures.  In  the  Ivough  Journal,  we  find 
a  blank  space  over  which  has  been  placed  a  printed 
broadside  of  the  Declaration,  attached  to  the  page  by 
red  wafers.  Following  this,  on  the  next  page,  we 
read:  "Ordered  that  the  Declaration  be  authenti 
cated -and  printed.  That  the  committee  appointed  to 
prepare  the  Declaration  superintend  and  correct  the 
press."  This  entry  occurs  in  no  other  manuscript 
nor  in  any  printed  Journal,  and  its  omission  is  to  be 
explained  only  upon  the  supposition  that  in  copying 
the  proceedings  of  the  day  for  the  printer  these  sen 
tences  were  overlooked  by  the  usually  careful  Sec 
retary,  Thomson.  For,  had  there  been  any  desire 


ADOPTING   AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         139 

to  withhold  them  from  publication,  they  would  have 
appeared  upon  the  pages  of  the  Secret  Journal,  upon 
which  they  are  not  to  be  found.  In  the  other  manu 
script,  the  Transcript,  the  Declaration  is  copied  out 
in  full  in  its  proper  place  in  Thomson's  handwrit 
ing.  From  this  it  would  appear  that  a  copy  of  the 
manuscript  of  the  Declaration  was  sent  to  Dunlap, 
the  printer,  immediately  after  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  providing  for  its  authentication  and  print 
ing,  and  that  performing  his  work  with  all  possible 
alacrity,  he  had  copies  struck  off  not  later  than  the 
day  following  that  on  which  it  was  received,  namely 
on  the  5th.  The  authentication  of  this  broadside,  as 
required  by  vote  of  the  Congress,  was  accomplished 
by  affixing  the  signatures  of  Hancock,  President,  and 
Charles  Thomson,  Secretary,  the  words  "  by  Order 
and  in  Behalf  of  the  Congress,"  being  added. 

With  this  evidence  both  from  print  and  manu 
script  before  us,  we  are  now  in  position  to  enter 
upon  an  examination  of  the  question  of  the  date  of 
the  signing.  And  if  we  are  to  arrive  at  anything 
approaching  accuracy,  all  statements  not  strictly 
contemporary  with  the  actual  event  must  be  disre 
garded.  Nothing  but  additional  confusion  has  re 
sulted  from  placing  reliance  upon  the  recollections 
of  the  participants,  as  embodied  in  letters  written 
more  than  forty  years  after  the  occurrences  to  which 
they  refer.  The  memories  of  the  Fathers  are  not 


I4O         THE   DECLARATION    OF   INDEPENDENCE 

to  be  trusted  for  details,  after  the  lapse  of  so  long 
a  period,  any  more  than  those  of  ordinary  mortals. 
In  attempting  to  marshal  the  evidence  of  real  weight 
then,  we  are  at  once  struck  by  the  fact  that  there  are 
extremely  few  statements  of  value  on  which  reliance 
can  be  placed.  And  the  further  point  is  revealed, 
that  diligent  search  has  not  discovered  any  account 
of  the  signing  which  we  know  took  place  on  August 
2,  except  the  formal  record  in  the  Journal. 

We  have  seen  that  the  authority  of  prime  im 
portance,  the  original  manuscript  Journal,  contains 
no  reference  to  any  act  of  signing  on  July  4.  The 
only  entries  respecting  such  an  act  are  those  bear 
ing  date  of  July  19  and  August  2,  as  given  above. 
Next  in  importance  may  be  considered  Jefferson's 
entry  in  his  autobiography  (written  certainly  within 
a  very  short  time  after  the  events  which  he  makes 
note  of,  and  perhaps  even  as  he  states  "  whilst  these 
things  were  going  on  ")  wherein  he  records  that 
after  the  Declaration  had  been  agreed  to  it  was 
"  signed  by  every  member  present  except  Mr.  Dick 
inson."1  This  is  the  only  direct  statement  to  be 
found  that  the  signing  took  place  on  this  day,  and 
as  will  be  shown,  it  is  manifestly  incorrect.  Suffice 
it  to  state  here  that  Robert  Morris,  in  addition  to 
Dickinson,  could  not  have  signed  on  that  day,  as 
he  also  absented  himself  in  order  that  the  vote  of 
Pennsylvania  might  be  cast  for  independence. 

1  Jefferson's  Works,  I,  28. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         14! 

As  against  Jefferson's  assertion  we  have  three 
contemporary  references  of  signal  importance. 
Samuel  Chase  of  Maryland  signed  on  August  2. 
On  July  5,  when  still  absent  from  Philadelphia  for 
the  purpose  of  keeping  Maryland  in  line,  he  wrote 
from  Annapolis  to  John  Adams,  asking,  "  How  shall 
I  transmit  to  posterity  that  I  gave  my  assent  ?  "  To 
this  John  Adams  sent  the  well  known  reply  on  July 
9,  "  As  soon  as  an  American  Seal  is  prepared,  I  con 
jecture  the  Declaration  will  be  subscribed  by  all  the 
members,  which  will  give  you  the  opportunity  you 
wish  for,  of  transmitting  your  name  among  the  vo 
taries  of  independence."1  Again,  Elbridge  Gerry, 
who  had  left  Philadelphia  on  account  of  ill-health, 
twelve  days  after  the  Declaration  was  adopted,  wrote 
to  John  and  Samuel  Adams  from  Kingsbridge, 
New  York,  on  July  21,  as  follows:  "  Pray  sub 
scribe  for  me  ye  Declaration  of  Independency  if 
ye  same  is  to  be  signed  as  proposed.  I  think  we 
ought  to  have  ye  privilege,  when  necessarily  absent, 
of  voting  and  signing  by  proxy."2  These  state 
ments  are  to  be  interpreted  in  only  one  way,  namely, 
that  there  could  have  been  no  signing  on  July  4,  ^ 
even  on  paper,  as  Jefferson  contended  many  years 
later  when  driven  into  a  corner.3  No  scrap  or  trace 

JJ.  Adams,  Works,  IX,  421,  and  note. 

2  MS.    Letter    in    Lenox   'Library,    N.    Y.,    Samuel    Adams 
Papers. 

3  Works,  I,  38. 


142         THE   DECLARATION    OF   INDEPENDENCE 

of  such  a  document  has  ever  been  discovered,  nor 
any  reference  to  it  except  this  one  of  Jefferson's. 
As  all  the  other  documents  of  importance  to  which 
signatures  are  attached  are  in  existence,  having  been 
carefully  preserved  by  Secretary  Thomson,  he  would 
certainly  not  have  allowed  an  original  of  such  value 
to  have  been  destroyed.  Taken  in  connection  with 
Chase's  query  and  John  Adams's  reply,  the  words 
of  Gerry  "  to  be  signed  as  proposed,"  and  "  signing 
by  proxy  "  practically  preclude  the  possibility  of  a 
signing  on  July  4. 

Turning  now  to  a  consideration  of  individual  del 
egates  who  were  present  and  might  have  signed  on 
July  4,  we  are  confronted  by  the  fact  that  had  a 
signing  then  taken  place,  the  list  would  have  been 
strikingly  different  from  that  with  which  we  are 
familiar.  New  Hampshire's  interests  were  then 
looked  after  by  Josiah  Bartlett  and  William  Whip- 
pie.  Those  of  Massachusetts  by  John  Hancock,  the 
two  Adamses,  Robert  Treat  Paine  and  Elbridge 
Gerry.  Stephen  Hopkins  and  William  Ellery  rep 
resented  Rhode  Island,  while  Roger  Sherman  and 
Samuel  Huntington  served  Connecticut.  The  dele 
gates  from  New  York  in  Congress  on  that  day  were 
William  Floyd,  Francis  Lewis,  George  Clinton, 
Henry  Wisner,  John  Alsop,  Robert  R.  Livingston, 
Philip  Livingston,  and  possibly,  Lewis  Morris. 
Those  from  New  Jersey  were  Richard  Stockton, 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION          143 

John  Witherspoon,  Francis  Hopkinson,  Abraham 
Clark,  and  probably  John  Hart.  Disturbed  Penn 
sylvania  had  to  put  her  reliance  on  James  Wilson, 
Benjamin  Franklin,  John  Morton,  Thomas  Willing 
and  Charles  Humphreys ;  and  little  Delaware  upon 
Caesar  Rodney,  George  Read,  and  Thomas  McKean. 
Maryland  had  in  Congress  William  Paca,  Thomas 
Stone,  and  John  Rogers;  Virginia,  Thomas  Jeffer 
son,  Benjamin  Harrison,  Carter  Braxton,  and  prob 
ably  also  Thomas  Nelson,  Jr.,  and  Francis  Light- 
foot  Lee;  North  Carolina,  Joseph  Hewes  and  John 
Penn;  South  Carolina,  Edward  Rutledge,  Thomas 
Hey  ward,  Jr.,  Thomas  Lynch,  Jr.,  and  Arthur  Mid- 
dleton;  and  finally,  Georgia's  delegation  was  made 
up  of  Button  Gwinnett,  Lyman  Hall,  and  George 
Walton.  It  has  been  possible  to  determine  definitely 
that  of  these  forty-nine  men  all  but  forty-five  were 
in  Philadelphia  on  July  4.  As  to  the  remaining 
four,  though  no  evidence  has  been  discovered  to 
show  that  they  were  absent,  no  positive  statement  has 
been  found  indicating  their  presence.  These  were 
the  men  in  Congress  on  July  4,  who  voted  for  the 
Declaration,  and  whose  names  would  have  been  af 
fixed  to  the  paper  if  it  had  been  signed  on  that  day. 
Comparing  them  with  the  list  of  those  who  signed 
on  or  after  August  2,  marked  discrepancies  appear. 
In  the  first  place,  as  has  already  been  stated,  New 
York's  entire  delegation,  for  lack  of  instructions, 


144         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

even  abstained  from  voting  upon  the  question  of  in 
dependence,  and  assuredly  would  not  have  signed  a 
document  for  which  they  had  not  voted ;  and  George 
Clinton,  John  Alsop,  R.  R.  Livingston,  and  Henry 
Wisner,  who  were  in  Philadelphia  on  July  4,  but  not 
on  August  2,  never  affixed  their  signatures,  though 
Livingston  might  have  done  so,  as  he  attended  the 
Congress  later  on  for  several  terms.  Secondly,  on 
July  20,  Pennsylvania's  entire  membership  was  re 
arranged,  and  only  four  of  those  who  had  repre 
sented  her  previous  to  that  time,  Franklin,  Morris, 
Morton,  and  Wilson,  were  re-elected.  Similar 
changes  occurred  in  many  of  the  other  delegations. 
Passing  over  for  the  moment  the  names  of  those  who 
were  not  in  the  Congress  on  August  2,  when  the  gen 
eral  signing  took  place,  we  are  enabled  to  determine 
that  some  of  those  whose  signatures  are  affixed  to 
the  Declaration,  could  not  have  signed  on  July  4,  by 
showing  that  either  they  were  then  not  members  of 
the  Congress,  or,  if  members,  were  absent  from  their 
posts.  Thus  William  Williams,  whose  name  appears 
among  Connecticut's  signers,  did  not  reach  Philadel 
phia  until  towards  the  end  of  July,  having  been 
directed  to  repair  to  that  city  on  the  eleventh,  by  the 
Council  of  Safety  of  his  state.1  Of  Pennsylvania's 
signers,  Rush,  Clymer,  Smith,  Taylor,  and  Ross  were 

1Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  2d  Series,  III,  375;  Force,  sth,  I, 
244. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         145 

not  members  until  July  20. l  Chase  and  Charles 
Carroll,  of  Carrollton,  were  in  attendance  upon  the 
Maryland  Convention  at  Annapolis,  and  were  being 
re-elected  delegates  on  the  very  day  when  some  sup 
pose  them  to  have  been  in  Philadelphia,  signing  the 
Declaration.2  Similarly  George  Wythe,  on  that  day, 
was  chairman  of  the  committee  of  the  whole  of  the 
Virginia  Convention,3  and  with  him  was  Richard 
Henry  Lee,  who  because  of  sickness  in  his  family 
had  left  Philadelphia  on  June  13.*  Again,  on  July  8 
Hewes  of  North  Carolina  asks  solicitously  about  the 
welfare  of  Hooper,  whom  he  had  expected  in  Phila 
delphia  long  before.5 

Attempting  now  to  determine  the  names  of  some 
of  those  who  were  present  on  the  day  officially  ap 
pointed  for  signing  the  engrossed  document  (August 
2),  we  reach  the  conclusion  that  a  far  greater  num 
ber  than  has  generally  been  supposed  were  not  in 
Philadelphia  on  that  day  either.  Attention  has  been 
repeatedly  drawn  to  the  absence  of  Matthew  Thorn 
ton  and  Thomas  McKean.  Thornton  was  not  elected 
a  member  until  September  2,  and  did  not  take  his 
seat  in  Congress  until  the  fourth  of  the  following 

1  Journal  of  Congress. 

2  Journal  of  Congress,  July  18. 

3  Force,  4th,  VI,  1608. 
*Ibid.,  834. 

'Ibid.,  5th,  I,  117. 

10 


146         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

November.'1  He  is  differentiated  from  all  the  other 
signers,  in  that  he  is  the  only  one  who  took  no  part 
in  the  discussion  and  vote  on  independence,  and 
did  not  arrive  in  Philadelphia  until  more  than  three 
months  after  the  general  signing  had  taken  place. 
His  signing  is  to  be  explained  only  by  an  unusually 
liberal  interpretation  of  the  resolution  of  July  19, 
which  provided  that  after  engrossment  the  document 
should  be  signed  by  every  member  of  the  Congress. 
But  this  resolution  could  not  have  intended  that  all 
members  subsequently  elected  should  sign,  or  else  a 
series  of  extra  sheets  would  have  had  to  be  provided 
for  the  purpose.  Colonel  McKean  was  for  a  long 
period  absent  from  the  Congress  with  his  regiment, 
and  he  is  himself  authority  for  the  statement  that 
he  signed  some  time  in  178 1.2  And  the  first  pub 
lished  list  of  signers,  in  1777,  omits  his  name. 

But  little  notice  has,  however,  been  taken  of  no 
less  significant  absences  than  these.  Oliver  Wolcott, 
broken  in  health,  did  not  remain  in  Philadelphia  for 
the  final  decision  on  independence.  He  knew  how 
his  colleagues  would  cast  the  vote  of  their  colony, 
and  that  his  continued  attendance  was  not  therefore 
requisite,  so  he  left  about  the  end  of  June,  and  could 
not  have  been  back  in  Philadelphia  again  before  the 

1  Journal  of  Congress. 

2  Buchanan's  McKean  Family. 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         147 

end  of  September.1  In  the  meantime  William  Wil 
liams,  his  substitute,  had  signed,  and  there  was  in 
reality  no  occasion  for  Wolcott  to  append  his  sig 
nature.  But  having  taken  part  in  the  early  agita 
tion  and  debates  he  was  allowed  to  sign  under  the 
general  rule. 

Elbridge  Gerry,  too,  so  important  a  factor  in  the 
early  days  of  the  discussion  about  asserting  inde 
pendence,  who  had  left  Philadelphia  for  rest  and  re 
cuperation  on  July  i6,2  did  not  return  until  Septem 
ber  3,3  a  month  after  he  is  supposed  to  have  signed. 
On  August  24,  he  was  at  Hartford,  Connecticut,  and 
in  a  letter  to  General  Gates  writes  that  he  is  on  his 
way  to  Philadelphia,  "  from  which  I  have  been  ab 
sent  for  about  a  month  for  health."4  The  two  fa 
mous  Virginians,  George  WTythe  and  Richard  Henry 
Lee,  we  have  seen,  were  in  Virginia  on  July  4.  They 
remained  there  for  a  considerable  period  after  that 
date,  and  were  also  absent  from  Philadelphia  on 
August  2.  On  July  20,  Jefferson  mentions  in  a 
letter  that  he  intends  to  set  out  on  his  return  home 
not  later  than  August  n,  to  visit  his  wife  who  is  ex 
tremely  ill,  and  adds  that  he  hopes  to  see  Lee  and 

1  He  was  in  New  York  on  July  i  and  at  his  home  at  Litch- 
field  on  July  15.  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proc.,  2d  Series,  III,  374, 
and  Force,  sth,  I,  970. 

z Force,  5th,  I,  348. 

3  John  Adams,  Letters  to  His  Wife,  I,  161. 

4  Force,  sth,  I,  1146. 


148         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Wythe  in  Philadelphia  before  he  departs.  On  the 
fifth  of  August  he  deplores  the  fact  that  Lee  is  un 
able  to  attend  until  the  twentieth,  as  it  prevents  his 
visiting  Mrs.  Jefferson.1  Examining  the  Journal,  we 
find  that  Lee's  name  first  reappears  there  on  August 
27,  and  Wythe's  not  until  nearly  a  month  later.  Lee 
after  the  earlier  date  and  Wythe  after  September  23 
are  repeatedly  selected  to  serve  on  important  com 
mittees.  Had  they  been  present  before,  it  is  entirely 
probable  that  they  would  have  been  chosen  for 
similar  service,  as  their  counsel  was  much  sought  in 
those  days,  when  attendance  on  the  Congress  was 
slim.  Lee,  therefore,  must  have  signed  some  time 
after  the  end  of  August,  and  Wythe  probably  a 
month  later,  though  their  signatures  lead  Virginia's 
column  on  the  document.  It  is  altogether  likely,  too, 
that  Pennsylvania's  large  delegation  did  not  all  affix 
their  signatures  on  the  same  day,  as  it  was  unusual 
for  so  many  delegates  from  one  state  to  be  in  attend 
ance  at  one  time.  As  they  came  and  went  at  inter 
vals,  they  probably  signed  whenever,  after  the  second 
of  August,  they,  happened  to  be  in  attendance  on  the 
Congress. 

The  engrossed  document  is  itself  largely  respon 
sible  for  the  erroneous  views  which  have  been  held 
respecting  the  date  of  the  signing.  Being  headed  by 
the  legend,  "  In  Congress,  July  4,  1776,"  and  ending 

1  Works,  II,  72,  74- 


^    ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         149 

with  the  fifty-six  signatures,  the  natural  inference  to 
be  made,  until  better  information  was  obtainable,  was 
that  this  official  document  was  signed  on  that  day. 
It  is  further  misinforming,  not  only  as  regards  the 
date  of  signing,  but  in  its  title,  "  The  unanimous 
Declaration  of  the  thirteen  united  States,"  under 
the  date  July  4.  For  on  that  day,  as  has  been  shown, 
New  York's  delegates  had  no  authority  to  vote,  so 
that  unanimity  was  procured  by  their  silence,  but 
twelve  colonies,  therefore,  taking  part  in  the  final 
ballot.  And  again,  seven  of  the  names  that  are 
affixed  are  those  of  men  who  were  not  members  of 
the  Congress  on  July  4 — Thornton,  Williams,  Rush, 
Clymer,  Smith,  Taylor  and  Ross;  while  exactly  the 
same  number  were  in  the  Congress  on  that  date 
but  never  signed  at  any  time — Clinton,  Alsop,  R.  R. 
Livingston,  Wisner,  Willing,  Humphreys  and 
Rogers. 

With  all  these  data  before  us  the  inference  is  allow 
able  that  to  but  few  men  did  the  actual  act  of  signing 
assume  the  large  importance  that  it  has  since  at 
tained.  The  unanimous  adoption  of  the  Declaration 
was  the  important  event,  the  signing  a  mere  final 
touch,  an  after-thought.  But  two  men,  Chase  and 
Gerry  have  recorded  any  anxiety  respecting  per 
mission  to  sign.  The  others  signed  in  accordance 
with  the  resolution  passed  on  July  19,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  and  all  except  McKean,  had  signed  when 


I$O         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE    ^ 

the  copies  of  the  Declaration,  with  the  signatures  of 
the  members,  were  printed  and  distributed  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  resolution  of  January  18,  1777. 

Finally,  a  word  may  be  added  respecting  the  loca 
tion  of  the  signatures  on  the  engrossed  document. 
They  are  arranged  in  six  columns  in  geographical 
order.  Beginning  at  the  left  hand,  the  generous 
space  of  an  entire  column  is  given  to  Georgia — a 
treatment  quite  out  of  keeping  with  the  extent  of 
her  efforts  to  support  and  advance  independence  at 
this  time.  In  the  next  are  those  of  North  and 
South  Carolina,  followed  by  those  of  Maryland  and 
Virginia,  Pennsylvania  and  Delaware,  New  York 
and  New  Jersey.  The  representatives  of  these 
states  having  all  signed,  but  one  column  more  was 
left  for  all  of  New  England,  and  the  thirteen  signa 
tures  from  that  region  are  crowded  into  the  remain 
ing  space.  When  Thornton  signed,  there  was  no 
place  for  him  to  write  his  name  with  the  New 
Hampshire  delegation,  so  he  was  compelled  to  put 
it  at  the  very  end  of  the  document,  below  the  repre 
sentatives  of  Connecticut.  Nor  was  there  room  to 
allow  for  the  grouping,  with  a  space  between  each 
state,  as  is  the  case  in  all  the  other  columns,  except 
where  great  Pennsylvania's  overwhelming  numbers 
invade  little  Delaware's  small  allotment  of  territory. 

If,  as  has  been  shown,  there  could  have  been  no 
signing  on  July  4,  this  does  not  militate  against 


ADOPTING  AND   SIGNING  DECLARATION         15 1 

the  fact  that  the  men  who  signed,  and  their  succes 
sors  in  the  Congress,  had  a  full  appreciation  of  the 
importance  of  the  day.  Beginning  with  1777,  each 
succeeding  anniversary,  during  the  whole  period  of 
the  existence  of  the  Continental  Congress,  was  ob 
served  in  appropriate  manner  with  a  banquet,  toasts, 
fireworks  and  bonfires,  and,  much  as  we  do  in  our 
time,  committees  were  always  appointed  to  see  to  it 
that  no  fitting  detail  was  omitted  that  might  render 
the  occasion  one  of  proper  festivity  and  rejoicing. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  DECLARATION  AND  ITS  CRITICS 

When  Thomas  Jefferson  penned  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  he  could  have  had  little  notion  of 
the  fame  that  would  be  his  in  consequence.  Nor 
could  he  have  had  more  than  a  slight  conception, 
far-seeing  statesman  though  he  was,  of  the  ultimate 
influence  that  it  was  to  have,  not  only  upon  the 
political  ideas  of  America,  but  of  the  world  as  well. 
To  say  that,  at  home  and  abroad  it  is  the  most 
famous  and  familiar  of  our  state  documents,  is  but 
to  record  a  platitude.  But  to  seek  the  explanation 
of  this  fact  is  quite  a  different  matter.  Nor  is  it 
too  much  to  state  that,  in  spite  of  the  familiar  terms 
in  which  we  speak  of  it,  of  the  many  occasions  on 
which  it  has  been  read  in  public  and  in  private, 
of  the  criticism  to  which  it  has  been  subjected  on 
the  one  hand  and  the  honeyed  words  of  praise  that 
have  been  heaped  upon  it  on  the  other,  it  is  within 
the  mark,  I  repeat,  to  say  that  it  is  the  least  com 
prehended  of  all  the  great  documents  produced  as 
a  result  of  our  political  development. 

The  reason  for  this  is  not  far  to  seek.  To  the 
people  of  the  generation  for  whom  it  was  written,  it 

152 


THE   DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  153 

required  no  interpreters  to  make  its  meaning  clear. 
It  dealt  with  affairs  that  were  so  much  of  every 
day  concern  as  to  be  entirely  intelligible  to  all,  to 
be  thoroughly  understanded  of  the  people.  But  as 
time  went  by,  the  men  to  whom  the  Declaration  made 
this  direct,  forcible,  appeal  passed  away,  leaving  no 
precise  interpretation  of  the  commonplaces  which 
they  comprehended  so  clearly  as  to  lead  them  to 
believe  that  all  who  came  after  must  understand 
with  like  readiness.  Subsequent  generations  as 
suming  to  understand  what  they  did  not,  have 
thoughtlessly  taken  it  at  but  a  part  of  its  full  value, 
and  even  then  have  derived  a  return  far  in  excess 
of  the  outlay  of  time  required  for  its  perusal.  My 
task  will  be,  therefore,  to  endeavor  to  put  before 
the  reader  of  these  pages  something  of  the  aspect 
that  the  Declaration  had  in  1776,  and  the  meaning 
it  conveyed  to  the  men  of  the  time;  in  the  full 
belief,  that  such  an  analysis  will  add  largely  to  our 
understanding  of  the  origin  of  its  enormous  influ 
ence,  and  greatly  enhance  rather  than  diminish  our 
appreciation  of  it. 

In  the  words  of  Professor  Tyler,  the  endeavor  to 
reach  a  right  estimate  of  the  Declaration  has  been 
hindered  by  the  two  opposite  states  of  mind  with 
which  its  consideration  is  approached :  "  on  the  one 
hand,  a  condition  of  hereditary,  uncritical  awe  and 
worship  of  the  American  Revolution  and  of  this 


154         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

state  paper  as  its  absolutely  perfect  and  glorious 
expression;  on  the  other  hand,  a  later  condition  of 
cultivated  distrust  of  the  Declaration,  as  a  piece  of 
writing  lifted  up  into  inordinate  renown  by  the  pas 
sionate  and  heroic  circumstances  of  its  origin,  and 
ever  since  extolled  beyond  reason  by  the  blind  en 
ergy  of  patriotic  enthusiasm."1 

Of  the  criticism  to  which  it  has  been  subjected 
there  has  been  no  lack,  almost  from  the  very  day  of 
its  publication.  "  It  has  been  attacked  again  and 
again,  either  in  anger  or  contempt,  by  friends  as 
well  as  by  enemies  of  the  American  Revolution,  by 
liberals  in  politics  as  well  as  by  conservatives.  It 
has  been  censured  for  its  substance,  it  has  been  cen 
sured  for  its  form;  for  its  misstatements  of  fact, 
for  its  fallacies  in  reasoning;  for  its  audacious  nov 
elties  and  paradoxes,  for  its  total  lack  of  all  novelty, 
for  its  repetition  of  old  and  threadbare  statements, 
even  for  its  downright  plagiarisms ;  finally  for  its 
grandiose  and  vaporing  style."2 

All  the  strictures  passed  upon  the  Declaration, 
however,  meriting  attention  may  be  grouped  under 
the  heads  of  want  of  originality ;  of  being  but  a  mass 
of  "  glittering  generalities  "  founded  upon  an  im 
possible  political  philosophy,  not  actually  believed  in 
by  the  men  who  gave  currency  to  it,  arid  now  a 

1  Tyler's  Literary  Hist,  of  American  Revolution,  I,  498. 

2  Ibid.,  499. 


THE   DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  I  55 

"  creed  outworn " ;  and,  finally,  of  attacking  the 
King  with  unwarranted  severity,  of  holding  him 
alone  responsible  for  the  commission  of  acts  of 
which  he  was  but  the  instrument,  denouncing  him 
without  warrant  as  a  "  prince,  whose  character  is 
thus  marked  by  every  act  which  may  define  a  ty 
rant  "  desiring  to  establish  an  absolute  tyranny  over 
the  colonists. 

The  all-embracing  reply  to  be  made  at  this  point 
is  that  the  Declaration  has  not  only  survived  the 
criticism  of  its  enemies  and  the  adulation  of  its 
friends,  but  still  lives  a  vigorous  life  capable 
of  influencing  unknown  future  generations.  No 
document  has  ever  been  put  to  such  severe,  intimate, 
popular  use  and  service.  And  in  that  use  and  ser 
vice,  had  it  been  incapable  of  withstanding  the  test, 
had  it  contained  inherent  defects  of  serious  conse 
quence,  distortions  of  facts  as  well  as  fallacies  of 
reasoning,  inadequency  in  general  and  in  detail,  it 
would  long  since  have  been  relegated  to  the  curi 
osity  cabinet  of  the  antiquarians,  together  with 
many  another  state  paper,  the  product  of  the  same 
time. 

By  the  accident  of  circumstance  it  became  at  one 
and  the  same  time  the  herald  proclaiming  the  birth 
of  our  nation,  and  the  justification  for  that  birth  as 
well.  Combining  in  itself  two  such  mighty  func 
tions,  it  could  never  have  survived  the  severe  test  of 


156         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

time  had  it  not  been  provided  with  human  elements 
of  a  profound  character.  Possessing  these  in  large 
degree, — far  larger  than  we  now  appreciate, — 
throbbing  with  life  in  each  of  its  nervous  sentences, 
it  is  by  this  inherent  vitality  that  it  has  made  its 
appeal  to  the  masses  and  the  classes  of  men,  who, 
not  fully  understanding  it,  yet  instinctively  have  a 
respect  and  regard  for  it  transcending  all  else  in 
American  political  history.  The  manner  of  teach 
ing  our  history  has  had  some  effect  in  crystallizing 
this  sentiment,  but  no  amount  of  teaching  could 
have  produced  this  had  the  doctrine  not  been 
worthy  of  its  teachers.  In  brief,  it  has  been  put  to 
almost  every-day  use,  and  as  yet  gives  no  evidence 
of  suffering  attrition  from  the  contact,  even  though 
temporarily  injured  in  one  of  its  most  vital  parts 
as  the  result  of  the  political  developments  of  recent 
years. 

Considering  in  detail  the  criticisms  mentioned 
above,  we  find  that  as  respects  its  claim  to  originality 
it  was  first  wounded  in  the  house  of  its  friends. 
John  Adams  was  among  the  earliest  to  find  fault 
with  it  on  this  ground,  though  he  could  never  have 
composed  a  document  so  terse  and  brief.  In  the 
evening  of  his  days,  he  still  smarted  from  a  know 
ledge  of  the  greater  popularity  of  Jefferson  as 
compared  with  his  own.  He  could  never  get 
over  that  this  idol  of  the  people  should  receive 


THE   DECLARATION    AND   ITS   CRITICS  157 

so  much  more  of  the  credit  for  his  share  in  the 
events  of  the  revolution  than  himself.  Accord 
ingly,  when  the  Declaration  had  withstood  nearly 
a  half  century  of  assault,  and  reflected  something 
of  the  lustre  of  renown  gained  by  its  distinguished 
author  during  his  later  political  career,  Adams 
thought  to  accomplish  the  impossible  by  trying  to 
minimize  its  importance  from  the  point  of  view  of 
originality.  He  thought  to  condemn  it  by  charging 
that  it  contained  "  not  an  idea  .  .  .  but  what  had 
been  hackneyed  in  Congress  for  two  years  before. 
The  substance  of  it  is  contained  in  the  declaration 
of  rights  and  the  violation  of  those  rights,  in  the 
Journals  of  Congress,  in  1774.  Indeed  the  essence 
of  it  is  contained  in  a  pamphlet  .  .  .  composed  by 
James  Otis."  1  He  was  entirely  unaware,  that  in 
writing  these  words  he  had  missed  the  point  com 
pletely,  and  was  unwittingly  according  the  Declara 
tion  the  highest  praise  that  has  ever  been  bestowed 
upon  it.  His  criticism,  which  betrays  a  failing 
strength,  for  in  his  earlier  and  more  vigorous  years 
he  could  not  have  made  so  commonplace  an  obser 
vation,  is  one  for  which  we  should  nevertheless  be 
grateful,  since  it  gave  Jefferson  the  opportunity  of 
penning  that  dignified,  comprehensive,  and  telling 
reply  in  which,  admitting  that  all  that  Adams  said 

1  The  Rights  of  the  British  Colonies  Asserted  and  Proved, 
1764.     For  Adams'  letter  see  Works,  II,  514  note. 


158         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

might  be  true,  of  which  he  was  no  judge,  he  adds : 
"  Richard  Henry  Lee  charged  it  as  copied  from 
Locke's  treatise  on  government.  Otis'  pamphlet  I 
never  saw,  and  whether  I  had  gathered  my  ideas 
from  reading  or  reflection  I  do  not  know.  I  know 
only  that  I  turned  to  neither  book  nor  pamphlet 
while  writing  it.  I  did  not  consider  it  as  any  part 
of  my  charge  to  invent  new  ideas  altogether,  and 
to  offer  no  sentiment  which  had  ever  been  expressed 
before.  Had  Mr.  Adams  been  so  restrained,  Con 
gress  would  have  lost  the  benefit  of  his  bold  and  im 
pressive  advocations  of  the  rights  of  Revolution. 
For  no  man's  confident  and  fervent  addresses,  more 
than  Mr.  Adams's,  encouraged  and  supported  us 
through  the  difficulties  surrounding  us,  which,  like 
the  ceaseless  action  of  gravity,  weighed  on  us  by 
night  and  by  day.  Yet,  on  the  same  ground,  we 
may  ask  what  of  these  elevated  thoughts  were  new, 
or  can  be  affirmed  never  before  to  have  entered  the 
conceptions  of  man. 

"  Whether,  also,  the  sentiments  of  Independence 
and  the  reasons  for  declaring  it,  which  make  so 
great  a  portion  of  the  instrument,  had  been  hack 
neyed  in  Congress  for  two  years  before  the  fourth  of 
July,  '76,  ...  let  history  say.  This,  however,  I 
will  say  for  Mr.  Adams,  that  he  supported  the  De 
claration  with  zeal  and  ability,  fighting  fearlessly  for 
every  word  of  it.  As  to  myself,  I  thought  it  a 


THE   DECLARATION    AND   ITS   CRITICS  I  59 

duty  to  be,  on  that  occasion,  a  passive  auditor  of  the 
opinions  of  others,  more  impartial  judges  than  I 
could  be,  of  its  merits  or  demerits.  During  the 
debate  I  was  sitting  by  Doctor  Franklin,  and  he  ob 
served  that  I  was  writhing  a  little  under  the  acri 
monious  criticisms  on  some  of  its  parts ;  and  it  was 
on  that  occasion,  that  by  way  of  comfort,  he  told 
me  the  story  of  John  Thompson  the  hatter  and  his 
new  sign."1 

No  words  by  way  of  explanation  or  in  addition 
can  diminish  or  increase  the  force  of  this  calm  pres 
entation  of  Jefferson's  conception  of  the  task  before 
him,  nor  any  serve  as  completer  answer  to  the 
charge  made.  Originality  of  substance  was  the  last 
quality  the  Declaration  should  have  had  if  it  was 
adequately  to  subserve  its  purpose. 

Of  the  utter  failure  to  comprehend  the  true  signifi 
cance  and  meaning  of  the  Declaration,  on  the  part  of 
the  later  generations,  no  better  example  exists  than 
that  furnished  by  the  renowned  advocate  Rufus 
Choate,  who  in  1856  first  spoke  of  "the  glittering 
and  sounding  generalities  of  natural  right  which 
make  up  the  Declaration  of  Independence/'2  This 
high-sounding  phrase,  as  rhetorical  as  any  part  of 
the  instrument  which  it  seeks  to  criticise,  has  been 
quoted  with  such  constant  repetition  and  approval 

v  Jefferson's  Works,  X,  267-268. 

2  Letter  to  the  Whigs  of  Maine,  1856. 


I6O         THE   DECLARATION    OF   INDEPENDENCE 

as  to  have  contributed  an  idiom  to  our  language. 
For  that  service  alone  it  should  be  welcomed.  If, 
however,  this  characterization  is  to  be  regarded  as 
giving  in  any  degree  an  adequate  summary  of  the 
Declaration,  as  is  assumed  by  the  author  of  the  most 
substantial  of  the  recent  histories  of  American  litera 
ture,1  its  falsity  will  become  apparent  from  a  reading 
of  the  analysis  supplied  in  the  succeeding  chapters. 
In  the  sense,  however,  that  by  the  glitter  of  its  golden 
phrases  the  Declaration  to  some  extent  blinded  the 
men  of  the  time,  and  prevented  them  from  perceiving 
the  full  magnitude  of  the  contest  in  which  they  were 
about  to  engage,  Mr.  Choate's  words  are  measurably 
true.  But  such  was  not  the  idea  he  wished  to  con 
vey,  and  such  is  not  the  understanding  of  those  who 
have  given  his  thought  a  currency  that  no  counterfeit 
should  have  procured.  He  viewed  it  from  its  rhe 
torical  side  alone,  overlooking  the  deep  underlying 
basis  of  fact  that  it  contained.  In  so  doing  he  failed 
to  discern  that  the  leaders  in  the  Congress  at  that 
time,  had  other  occupations  than  signing  their  names 
to  documents  that  were  mere  pieces  of  rhetoric. 
That  the  Declaration  contains  rhetorical  passages 
none  can  deny,  but  that  it  is  all  idle  vaporing  no  one 
familiar  with  the  history  of  the  antecedent  con 
troversy,  and  the  pointed  references  of  each  of  its 
clauses,  can  admit.  Moreover,  the  constant  use  and 

1  Wendell's  Literary  History  of  America,  106. 


THE   DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  l6l 

service  to  which  the  Declaration  has  been  put,  have 
caused  its  fundamental  concepts  to  assume  some 
thing  of  the  nature  of  generalities  to  the  masses  of 
men.  This  is  the  natural  consequence  from  the 
universal  acceptance  of  maxims  which  at  one  time 
had  to  prove  their  quality  before  obtaining  standing. 

By  the  vast  advances  made  in  recent  years  in  scien 
tific  method,  many  old  and  cherished  theories  of  past 
ages  have  been  uprooted.  The  political  ideas  of  the 
Fathers  seem  no  more  likely  to  survive  than  any 
other  part  of  the  philosophy  of  their  time.  This  is 
natural,  since  in  a  dynamic  society  the  discovery  of 
new  phenomena  must  give  rise  to  new  interpretations 
of  them.  But  so  far  little  conscious,  discernible  im 
press  has  been  made  by  the  latter-day  doctrines  of 
political  science  upon  our  political  life.  The  whole 
body  of  the  science  is  as  yet  too  new  to  have  done 
so,  and  until  it  has  proved  its  mettle  through  trial, 
the  masses  of  men  will  continue,  certainly  in  this 
country,  to  adhere  with  tenacity  to  the  old  doc 
trines  that  have  served  as  inspiration  to  so  many 
generations.  And  just  as  the  political  philosophy  of 
the  eighteenth  century  now  seems  outworn,  and  has 
been  supplanted  by  the  evolutionary  philosophy,  so 
the  latter  will  in  all  likelihood  prove  to  be  no  more 
the  final  word  upon  the  subject  than  its  predecessor. 

The  answer  to  the  charge  of  indicting  merely  the 
King  when  Parliament  was  as  much  to  blame  for  the 
ii 


1 62         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

maladministration  of  American  affairs  as  himself, 
has  to  some  extent  been  given  in  the  earlier  pages. 
To  have  now  held  Parliament,  or  Parliament  and 
King  jointly,  and  not  the  King  alone,  responsible  for 
the  act  which  they  were  driven  to  commit,  would 
have  been  to  stultify  the  whole  course  of  procedure 
of  the  colonies  in  the  controversy.  From  its  incep 
tion  it  was  based  on  opposition  to  the  ministry  and 
Parliament,  and  on  the  assumption  that  the  King  and 
his  acts  were  to  be  differentiated  from  the  former.1 
It  began  with  the  denial  of  the  right  of  Parliament 
to  have  control  over  the  colonies,  not  only  in  matters 
of  taxation  but  in  general  affairs  as  well,  except  so 
far  as  was  necessary  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the 
British  empire.  Fundamentally  it  had  its  origin  in 
the  concept  that  the  rights  to  life,  liberty,  and  prop 
erty,  and  "  the  rights,  liberties  and  immunities  of 
free  and  natural  born  subjects,"2  were  the  colonists' 
by  inheritance,  and  had  been  guaranteed  to  them 
"  by  the  plighted  faith  of  government  and  the  most 
solemn  compacts  with  British  sovereigns  " — not,  it 
is  to  be  noted,  with  the  British  Parliament.3  They 

1  See  in  this  connection  the  early  attempts  in  Pennsylvania 
to  overthrow  the  proprietary  government  with  the  object  of 
having  the  colony  converted  into  a  royal  province  under  the 
crown.     Sheperd,    Hist,    of    Prop.    Govt.    in    Penna.    passim, 
Lincoln,  op.  cit.,  Chapter  VI. 

2  Declaration  of  Rights,  1774. 

8  Address  to  People  of  Great  Britain,  Oct.  21,  1774. 


THE   DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  163 

held  further,  that  the  "  foundation  of  English  liberty, 
and  of  all  free  government,  is  a  right  in  the  people 
to  participate  in  their  legislative  council :  and  as  the 
English  colonists  are  not  represented,  and  from  their 
local  and  other  circumstances,  cannot  properly  be 
represented  in  the  British  Parliament,  they  are  en 
titled  to  a  free  and  exclusive  power  of  legislation  in 
the  several  provincial  legislatures,  where  their  right 
of  representation  can  alone  be  preserved,  in  all  cases 
of  taxation  and  internal  polity,  subject  only  to  the 
negative  of  their  sovereign,  in  such  manner  as  has 
been  heretofore  used  and  accustomed."  But  from 
the  necessity  of  the  case,  they  would  submit  to  the 
regulation  of  their  external  commerce  "  for  the  pur 
pose  of  securing  the  commercial  advantages  of  the 
whole  empire,  to  the  mother  country  .  .  .  excluding 
every  idea  of  taxation  internal  or  external,  for  rais 
ing  a  revenue  on  the  subjects  in  America,  without 
their  consent."1 

This  then  was  their  theory:  the  social  contract 
idea  of  the  origin  of  government,  on  which  their 
relations  with  the  British  empire  were  based;  the 
right  to  representation,  and  through  their  represen-  / 
tatives  the  control  of  their  property,  subject  only  to 
a  limited,  vague,  ill-defined,  parliamentary  super 
vision.  A  considerable  number  of  the  more  logical, 
among  them  notably  Jefferson,  prior  to  the  meeting 

1  Declaration  of  Rights,  1774,  Article  4. 


164        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

of  the  Congress  of  1774,  had  gone  further,  and  dis 
claiming  the  authority  of  Parliament  to  bind  the 
colonies  in  any  respect  whatever,  spoke  of  the  "  acts 
of  power,  assumed  by  a  body  of  men,  foreign  to  our 
constitutions  and  unacknowledged  by  our  laws."1 
But  since  they  admitted  that  full  allegiance  was 
owing  to  the  crown,  by  reason  of  solemn  compact, 
this  was  not  seriously  called  in  question  in  any  docu 
ment,  except  in  one  paragraph  of  the  address  to  the 
colonies  of  October,  I774,2 — and  this  may  be  as 
sumed  to  be  a  slip.  Going  further,  they  stated  ex 
plicitly  in  their  first  petition  that  they  desired  no 
diminution  of  the  royal  prerogative.  Though  how 
they  could  reconcile  this  with  some  of  the  passages 
in  the  address  to  the  colonies  of  1774,  is  not  quite 
clear.  However,  entire  consistency  was  never  a 
characteristic  of  any  revolution. 

On  the  other  hand  the  "  legislature,"  "  parlia 
ment,"  "  the  ministry,"  and  "  administration,"  are 
repeatedly  denounced  and  held  responsible  for  the 
ills  from  which  they  are  suffering.3  As  has  been 
shown,  the  first  occasion  on  which  official  expression 
was  given  to  the  grounds  on  which  the  United  Col- 

1  Summary  View,  Ford's  Jefferson,  I,  439. 

2 Journal,  October  21,  1774.  The  sentence  begins,  "By  or 
der  of  the  King." 

8  Address  to  People  of  Great  Britain,  and  Address  to  Col 
onies,  1774.  Declaration  of  Causes  of  Taking  up  Arms,  July 
6,  1775,  etc. 


THE  DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  165 

onies  would  base  their  contentions,  and  the  lengths 
to  which  Parliament  was  to  be  allowed  to  go  in  ex 
ercising  control,  was  in  the  Declaration  of  Rights 
of  1774.  The  very  fact  of  determining  then  to  issue 
addresses  to  the  King,  and  to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain  and  America,  with  studied  care  ignoring  Par 
liament  from  now  on,  except  to  denounce  it,  was  in 
itself  a  renunciation  of  parliamentary  supremacy 
more  bold  than  any  of  the  Congress'  other  measures. 
Nine  months  later,  after  again  professing  a  willing 
ness  to  submit  to  the  acts  of  trade  and  navigation 
passed  before  1763,  the  position  of  Congress  was  re 
stated  in  the  very  words  used  before.1  In  the  official 
answer  to  Lord  North's  motion,  in  the  main  the 
handiwork  of  Jefferson,2  made  a  few  weeks  later, 
such  paragraphs  as  this  are  found :  "  As  the  colonies 
possess  a  right  of  appropriating  their  gifts,  so  are 
they  entitled  at  all  times  to  inquire  into  their  applica 
tion.  ...  To  propose,  therefore,  as  this  resolution 
does,  that  the  moneys  given  by  the  colonies  shall  be 
subject  to  the  disposal  of  parliament  alone,  is  to  pro 
pose  that  they  shall  relinquish  this  right  of  inquiry, 
and  put  it  in  the  power  of  others  to  render  their 
gifts  ruinous,  in  proportion  as  they  are  liberal." 
Again :  "We  conceive  that  the  British  parliament  has 

1  July  8,   1775,  Address  to  the  Inhabitants  of  Great  Britain. 

2  Works,  I,  1 8,  476.     See  p.  39,  supra.     Journal  of  Congress, 
July  31,  1775. 


1 66        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

no  right  to  intermeddle  with  our  provisions  for  the 
support  of  civil  government,  or  administration  of 
justice.  .  .  .  While  parliament  pursues  their  plan  of 
civil  government  within  their  own  jurisdiction,  we 
also  hope  to  pursue  ours  without  molestation."  And 
a  little  further  on  in  the  same  document  we  find  an 
enumeration  of  the  acts  which  can  never  be  sub 
mitted  to  since  they  evince  a  desire  for  "  the  exercise 
of  indiscriminate  legislation  over  us." 

Side  by  side  with  these  disclaimers  of  parlia 
mentary  supremacy  went  protests  of  the  most  abso 
lute  loyalty  to  the  King.1  And  as  if  to  render  them 
the  more  forcible,  they  are  accompanied  by  un 
equivocal  denials  that  their  conduct  is  actuated  by 
a  desire  to  separate  from  the  British  union  and  estab 
lish  an  independent  government.2  The  unprepared 
condition  of  the  country  for  war,  is  the  best  proof 
of  the  truth  of  these  assertions,  as  well  as  the  strong 
est  answer  to  those  who  maintain  that  the  whole  agi 
tation  was  but  a  veil  to  cloak  a  movement  having  as 
its  ultimate  object  the  establishment  of  independence. 
The  country  was  not  more  prepared  for  independ 
ence  than  it  was  for  war,  at  this  time,  a  year  before 
the  final  act  was  consummated,  and  had  any  idea  of 
separation  from  the  mother  country  been  definitely 
announced,  it  would  have  wrecked  the  whole  revolu- 

1  Petitions  of  1774  and  1775. 
"Journal,  July  6,   1775. 


THE  DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  l6/ 

tionary  organization.  Scarcely  half  a  dozen  of  the 
members  of  the  Congress  favored  it,  and  they  were 
the  radicals  among  radicals,  and  their  weakness  was 
demonstrated  by  the  overwhelming  manner  in  which 
their  opposition  to  sending  a  second  petition  was 
brushed  aside. 

The  definite  renunciation  of  all  idea  of  parlia 
mentary  control  of  any  kind  came  in  December,  1775, 
in  answer  to  the  King's  proclamation  of  August  23* 
— the  sole  reply  ever  accorded  to  their  last  petition. 
In  this  we  find  also  the  most  definite  statement  of  the 
colonial  view  of  the  relations  between  the  crown  and 
the  colonies,  as  yet  put  forward.  Moreover,  the 
wager  of  battle  thrown  down  by  the  King  is  taken 
up,  and  now  for  the  first  time  the  rights  of  the  crown 
are  seriously  called  into  question.  In  the  King's  pro 
clamation  the  colonists  were  accused  of  "  forgetting 
the  allegiance  which  they  owe  to  the  power  that  has 
protected  and  maintained  them."  To  this  the  reply 
is  made :  "  What  allegiance  is  it  that  we  forgot  ? 
Allegiance  to  parliament?  We  never  owed — we 
never  owned  it.  ...  We  condemn,  and  with  arms  in 
our  hands,  a  resource  which  freemen  will  never  part 
with,  we  oppose  the  claim  and  exercise  of  unconsti 
tutional  powers,  to  which  neither  the  crown  nor  par 
liament  were  ever  entitled.  .  .  .  We  know  of  no 
laws  binding  on  us,  but  such  as  have  been  trans- 

1  See  p.  47. 


1 68        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

mitted  to  us  by  our  ancestors,  and  such  as  have  been 
consented  to  by  ourselves." 

The  time  had  arrived,  now,  to  take  a  further  step 
in  the  enunciation  of  the  theory  on  which  the  opposi 
tion  to  the  British  contentions  was  based.  This  was 
done  in  the  document  cited  above  in  the  following 
specific  and  thoroughly  adequate  terms  from  the 
point  of  view  of  English  constitutional  history: 
"  We  view  him  [the  king]  as  the  constitution  repre 
sents  him.  That  tells  us  he  can  do  no  wrong.  The 
cruel  and  illegal  attacks,  which  we  oppose,  have  no 
foundation  in  the  royal  authority.  We  will  not  on 
our  part  lose  the  distinction  between  the  King  and 
his  ministers;  happy  would  it  have  been  for  some 
former  princes,  had  it  always  been  preserved  on  the 
part  of  the  crown."1  And  in  thus  emphasizing  the 
view  that  Parliament  and  the  ministry  were  distinct 
from  the  crown,  they  were  but  giving  voice  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  separation  of  powers  first  announced 
by  Locke,  and  more  recently  made  familiar  in  the 
well-known  work  of  Montesquieu,  which  every  po 
litical  thinker  of  this  time  had  at  his  elbow. 

Thus,  having  constantly  drawn  the  distinction 
between  the  King  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  ministry 
and  Parliament  on  the  other,  and  having  already 
repudiated  the  ministry  and  Parliament  in  the  terms 

1  This  remarkably  strong  paper  was  drawn  up  by  R.  H.  Lee, 
Wilson,  and  W.  Livingston. 


THE  DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS  169 

recorded  in  the  last  few  pages,  there  was  nothing 
left  for  the  colonies  but  to  renounce,  at  the 
last  stage,  their  allegiance  to  the  crown.  This  was 
done  for  the  first  time  in  the  resolutions  of  May 
15,  I776,1  and  finally,  and  for  all  time,  in  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  By  way  of  conclud 
ing  the  discussion  of  this  point  the  words  of  Daniel 
Webster,  who  has  so  clearly  interpreted  the  colonial 
position,  may  well  be  reproduced  here :  "  The  in 
habitants  of  all  the  colonies,  while  colonies,  admitted 
themselves  bound  by  their  allegiance  to  the  King; 
but  they  disclaimed  altogether,  the  authority  of  Par 
liament;  holding  themselves,  in  this  respect  to 
resemble  the  condition  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  be 
fore  the  respective  unions  of  those  kingdoms  with 
England,  when  they  acknowledged  allegiance  to  the 
same  King,  but  each  had  its  separate  legislature. 
The  tie  therefore,  which  our  revolution  was  to  break, 
did  not  subsist  between  us  and  the  British  govern 
ment,  in  the  aggregate ;  but  directly  between  us  and 
the  King  himself.  The  colonists  had  never  admitted 
themselves  subject  to  Parliament.  That  was  pre 
cisely  the  point  of  the  original  controversy.  They 
had  uniformly  denied  that  Parliament  had  authority 
to  make  laws  for  them.  There  was,  therefore,  no 
subjection  to  Parliament  to  be  thrown  off.  But 
allegiance  to  the  King  did  exist,  and  had  been  uni- 
1  See  p.  91. 


a 


I/O        THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

formly  acknowledged;  and  down  to  1775,  the  most 
solemn  assurances  had  been  given  that  it  was  not 
intended  to  break  that  allegiance,  or  to  throw  it 
off.  Therefore,  as  the  direct  object,  and  only  effect 
of  the  Declaration,  according  to  the  principles  on 
which  the  controversy  had  been  maintained,  was  to 
sever  the  tie  of  allegiance  which  bound  us  to  the 
King,  it  was  properly  and  necessarily  founded  on 
cts  of  the  crown  itself,  as  its  justifying  causes.  .  .  . 
Consistency  with  the  principles  upon  which  resist 
ance  began,  and  with  all  the  previous  state  papers 
issued  by  Congress  required  that  the  Declaration 
should  be  bottomed  on  the  misgovernment  of  the 
King;  and  therefore  it  was  properly  framed  with 
that  aim  and  to  that  end.  The  King  was  known 
indeed,  to  have  acted,  as  in  other  cases,  by  his 
ministers,  and  with  his  Parliament;  but  as  our  an 
cestors  had  never  admitted  themselves  subject 
either  to  ministers  or  Parliament,  there  were  no 
reasons  to  be  given  for  now  refusing  obedience  to 
their  authority.  This  clear  and  obvious  necessity 
of  founding  the  Declaration  on  the  misconduct  of 
the  King  himself,  gives  to  that  instrument  its  per 
sonal  application,  and  its  character  of  direct  and 
pointed  accusation."  * 

To   so   much   as   concerns   the   charges   in   the 
Declaration  respecting  the  establishment  of  an  ab- 

1  Speech  in  Faneuil  Hall,  Boston,  Aug.  2,  1826. 


THE  DECLARATION   AND   ITS   CRITICS 


solute  tyranny,  and  of  a  conduct,  "  marked  by  every 
act  which  may  define  a  tyrant,"  but  few  words,  in 
passing,  are  necessary.  If  the  charges  against  the 
king  had  any  basis  in  fact,  they  assuredly  displayed 
a  desire  to  establish  a  tyranny,  as  that  term  is  under 
stood  in  English  constitutional  history,  and  as  it  is 
defined  by  Locke.  And  the  personal  dominance 
which  George  III  established  over  his  Parliament 
and  ministers,  dating  from  1768,  by  the  most  cor 
rupt  methods  debauching  the  whole  of  the  ruling 
classes  for  his  own  purposes,1  was  marked,  if  not 
"  by  every  act  which  may  define  a  tyrant,"  at  least  by 
sufficient  to  warrant  recourse  to  that  rhetorical  char 
acterization,  when  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion 
made  requisite. 

1  See  Lecky,  Hist,  of  England  in  i8th  Century,  and  Green, 
Short  Hist,  of  English  People.  Also  Donne's  Correspondence 
of  George  III  with  Lord  North. 


CHAPTER   VIII 
THE  PURPOSE  OF  THE  DECLARATION 

Consideration  having  been  given  to  the  erroneous 
conceptions  respecting  the  Declaration,  that  have 
arisen  as  the  result  of  approaching  it  with  inade 
quate  preparation  for  its  proper  understanding,  it 
is  necessary  at  this  point  to  give  attention  to  the 
purpose  it  was  intended  to  subserve,  and  to  regard 
it  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  success  with  which 
this  was  attained.  For  the  accomplishment  of  this 
object  it  is  requisite  that  so  far  as  possible  it  be 
interpreted,  not  in  terms  of  twentieth  century  phi 
losophy  or  politics,  but  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
men  who  had  a  share  in  the  events  from  which  the 
Declaration  arose,  and  of  which  it  was,  to  an  ex 
tent,  the  outward  expression.  No  part  of  the  writ 
ing  of  history  is  more  difficult  than  that  which  aims 
to  put  ourselves  in  the  place  of  the  men  participating 
in  great  historic  movements,  and  to  attempt  to  view 
the  results  of  their  achievements  from  their  own 
attitude  of  mind,  to  penetrate  the  well-springs  of 
their  motives.  Yet,  unless  this  be  undertaken,  no 
substantially  correct  results  can  be  achieved.  Ac 
cordingly  it  is  for  us  to  consider  now  the  motives 
172 


THE   PURPOSE  OF   THE  DECLARATION 

actuating  Jefferson's  selection  to  prepare  the  Dec 
laration,  and  the  nature  of  the  task  put  before 
him. 

The  stupendous  magnitude  of  the  work  was  ap 
preciated  by  none  so  well  as  by  him,  and  might 
readily  have  caused  even  a  greater  man  to  hesitate 
long  before  engaging  in  it.  Yet  the  choice  of  the 
Congress,  and  of  the  committee  fell  upon  him,  with 
singular  unanimity,  as  the  one  best  fitted  by  his 
attainments  to  produce  a  document  of  the  character 
desired.  This  was  no  mere  chance,  for,  though 
his  voice  was  silent,  his  pen  had  given  full  expres 
sion  to  his  thoughts.  He  was  no  orator,  but,  "  a 
silent  member  in  Congress,"  yet  "  prompt,  frank,  ex 
plicit,  and  decisive  upon  committees  and  in  con 
versation."1 

Among  all  the  countless  disquisitions  upon  the 
rights  of  the  colonies,  and  the  wrongs  to  which 
the  colonists  believed  they  had  been  subjected,  pro 
duced  during  the  previous  fifteen  years  of  contro 
versy,  one,  written  in  1774,  and  given  the  title  A 
Summary  View  of  the  Rights  of  British  America,2 
stood  out  in  especial  prominence,  marking  its  au 
thor  as  a  greater  among  great  men.  Jefferson  de 
signed  it  to  serve  the  double  purpose  of  furnishing 
instructions  to  the  Virginia  delegates  to  the  first 

1J.  Adams'  Works,  II,  514,  note. 
2  Ford's  Jefferson,  I,  421  et  seq. 


THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

Continental  Congress,  and  to  give  that  body  a  com 
mon  ground  on  which  to  establish  its  statement  of 
grievances  and  demands  for  redress.  That  in  some 
of  its  contentions  it  was  too  advanced  to  be  suitable 
to  the  exigencies  of  the  time  and  failed  of  its  object, 
is  not  of  importance  in  this  connection.  But  it  is 
to  the  point,  that  it  displayed  a  scholarly  knowledge 
of  the  history  of  the  various  colonies,  a  depth  of  in 
sight  into  the  essentials  of  the  controversy,  framed 
withal  with  a  felicity  and  lucidity  of  expression, 
such  as  was  possessed  by  none  of  his  contempor 
aries.  In  the  brief  twenty-three  pages  of  this  essay 
he  touched  upon  every  phase  of  the  colonial  conten-^ 
tions,  and  thereby  established  his  reputation  as  a 
forceful,  sagacious,  philosophical  thinker.1 

To  prepare  a  Declaration  of  Independence,  how 
ever,  was  a  far  different  task.  That  document,  in  a 
few  lines,  had  to  cover  not  only  all  the  ground 
of  the  Summary  View,  but  to  recapitulate  as  well 
the  rapid  developments  of  the  two/  full  years  that 
had  elapsed  since  its  production.  As  it  was  de 
signed  to  appeal  to  all  the  colonies,  it  had  to 
treat  not  only  of  the  grievances  common  to  all,  but 
of  those  that  bore  most  heavily  upon  any  particular 
colony,  were  peculiar  to  that  colony,  and  conse 
quently  of  transcending  importance  to  itself.  Yet 

1  See  also  his  proposed  constitution  for  Virginia,  Works,  II, 
7  et  seq. 


THE    PURPOSE   OF   THE   DECLARATION  1/5 

in  so  doing  the  balance  of  the  whole  had  to  be 
carefully  preserved,  that  no  single  part  might  rise 
to  undue  prominence  by  the  over-weight  of  any 
other.  But  it  could  not  stop  here.  It  had  to  be 
couched  in  such  terms  as  would  serve  as  justifica 
tion,  to  the  world  at  large  no  less  than  to  the  in 
habitants  of  the  colonies,  for  the  act  which  it  pro 
claimed.  Dealing  with  things  familiar  to  every 
frequenter  of  the  taverns,  to  every  reader  of  the 
gazettes  and  pamphlets,  it  had  to  make  its  appeal  to 
the  thoughtful  as  well  as  to  the  unthinking,  to  the 
philosophers  as  well  as  to  the  groundlings,  and  in 
such  a  manner  that  they  would  not  be  wearied  by 
its  perusal,  but  stirred  to  enthusiasm  as  they  pro 
ceeded.  It  had  to  include  the  best  of  the  pre-  . 
vious  productions,  but  only  their  essentials.  Not 
less  a  party  platform  of  national  scope  than  a  polit 
ical  manifesto,  the  warmth  of  its  phraseology  must 
win  over  the  wavering  and  fire  the  more  advanced 
with  a  desire  to  come  forward  to  enlist  and  fight 
for  their  rights  and  liberties,  since  troops  were  at 
this  time  much  more  needed  than  wordy  rhetoric. 
As  such  it  took  the  place  of  the  "  animated  address," 
resolved  upon  at  the  end  of  May,  which  was  "  to  im 
press  the  minds  of  the  people  with  the  necessity 
of  now  stepping  forward  to  save  their  country,  their 
freedom,  and  property,"  but  which  never  saw  the 


THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 


light,  since  the  issuance  of*  the  Declaration  made 
this  unnecessary.1 

All  these  qualities  it  must  have  and  more  besides. 
It  must  foster  the  rapidly  advancing  though  far  from 
strong  sentiment  of  union,  so  that  those  who  once 
gave  assent  to  it  would  support  each  other  no  matter 
what  the  future  had  in  store  for  them.  And  it  must 
needs  do  this  in  such  manner  that  no  other  course 
should  appear  practicable.  It  was  to  be  the  expres 
sion  of  a  minority  party,  but  of  so  well-organized 
a  minority,  that  it  could  hope  ultimately  to  effect  the 
conversion  of  that  party,  by  accessions  to  its  ranks, 
into  an  unquestioned,  dominating  majority.  It 
could  not,  therefore,  be  non-partisan,  yet  it  must  con 
vince  by  argument  as  well  as  drive  by  force  of  its 
inherent  power.  And  no  slight  portion  of  its 
strength  was  to  be  gained  from  couching  it  in  a 
phraseology  made  familiar  during  the  fifteen  years 
of  controversy,  and  having  a  basis  in  the  whole  of 
English  and  colonial  constitutional  development.  It 
had  to  make  charges,  but  none  that  could  not  be 
reasonably  supported  ;  and  in  indicting  a  King  and  a 
nation  it  had  to  word  this  indictment  in  such  terms 
that  it  would  not  be  thrown  out  of  court  by  the  coun 
try  and  the  world.  The  position  of  the  revolutionists 

1  Secret  Journal  of  Congress,  Domestic,  May  29,  1776.  The 
committee  to  prepare  this  address  consisted  of  Jefferson, 
Wythe,  S.  Adams  and  Rutledge. 


THE   PURPOSE  OF  THE  DECLARATION  I7/ 

had  to  be  fortified  so  that  it  could  withstand  attack, 
and,  having  the  choice  of  situation,  it  had  to  make 
the  most  of  the  enemy's  weakness,  nor  yet  disregard 
its  strength. 

Since  it  was  to  be,  as  has  been  well  said  by  Pro 
fessor  Tyler,  "  an  impassioned  manifesto  of  one 
party,  and  that  the  weaker  party  in  a  violent  race 
quarrel ;  of  a  party  resolved,  at  last,  upon  the  ex 
tremity  of  a  revolution,  and  already  menaced  by  the 
inconceivable  disaster  of  being  defeated  in  the  very 
act  of  armed  rebellion  against  the  mightiest  power 
on  earth,"  it  "  is  not  to  be  censured  because  being 
avowedly  a  statement  of  its  side  of  the  quarrel,  it 
does  not  also  contain  a  moderate  and  judicial  state 
ment  of  the  opposite  side;  or  because,  being  neces 
sarily  partisan  in  method,  it  is  likewise  both  par 
tisan  and  vehement  in  tone."1  Jefferson's  position 
was  that  of  advocate,  and  he  so  regards  himself,  and 
it  was  his  duty,  therefore,  to  present  his  case  in  the 
strongest  possible  terms,  leaving  his  opponent  to  take 
care  of  himself. 

But  above  all,  had  the  Declaration  comprised  all 
the  qualities  which  have  been  mentioned  as  necessary 
to  its  fulfilling  the  objects  for  which  it  was  designed, 

it  would  never  have  survived  as  it  has,  and  attained 

\ 

to  its  vast  influence  upon  our  political  life,  had  it 
been  lacking  in  three  essential  characteristics.  These 

1  Literary  Hist,  of  American  Revolution,  I,  509. 
12 


THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 


are  its  underlying  philosophy,  its  human  elements, 
and  its  literary  form.  Of  the  philosophy  more  will 
be  said  presently.  Suffice  it  now  to  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  it  had  been  preached  to  such  an  extent, 
that  through  the  Declaration  it  could  make  its  appeal 
direct  to  the  mind  of  even  the  most  unthinking.  The 
human  element  of  the  Declaration  appears  in  almost 
every  phrase,  from  the  first  respecting  the  refusal 
of  assent  to  laws  most  wholesome  and  necessary  for 
the  public  good,  to  the  last  of  exciting  domestic 
insurrection  and  endeavoring  to  bring  on  the  in 
habitants  of  the  frontiers,  the  merciless  Indian  sav 
ages.  Had  it  not  been  possible  thus  to  address  the 
emotions  of  the  individual  and  make  him  feel  that  his 
all  was  at  stake,  and  had  it  not  been  done  in  such 
forceful,  stirring,  convincing  manner,  the  revolu 
tion  could  never  have  been  carried  to  a  successful 
conclusion. 

No  one  is  better  qualified  to  speak  of  the  literary 
form  of  the  Declaration  than  Professor  Tyler.  The 
praise  he  accords  it  is  of  the  highest,  but  none  famil 
iar  with  his  scholarly  attainments  will  regard  it  as 
undiscriminating  or  lavish.  "  Most  writings,"  he 
holds,  "  have  had  the  misfortune  of  being  read  too 
little.  There  is  however  a  misfortune  —  perhaps  a 
greater  misfortune  —  which  has  overtaken  some  liter 
ary  compositions,  and  these  not  necessarily  the 
noblest  and  best,  of  being  read  too  much.  At  any 


THE   PURPOSE  OF   THE   DECLARATION 

rate,  the  writer  of  a  piece  of  literature  which  has 
been  neglected,  need  not  be  refused  the  consolation 
he  may  get  from  reflecting  that  he  is,  at  least,  not 
the  writer  of  a  piece  of  literature  that  has  become 
hackneyed.  Just  this  is  the  sort  of  calamity  which 
seems  to  have  befallen  the  Declaration  of  Independ 
ence.  .  .  . 

"  Had  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  been,  what 
many  a  revolutionary  state  paper  is,  a  clumsy,  ver 
bose  and  vaporing  production,  not  even  the  robust 
literary  taste  and  the  all-forgiving  patriotism  of  the 
American  people  could  have  endured  the  weariness, 
the  nausea,  of  hearing  its  repetition,  in  ten  thousand 
different  places,  at  least  once  every  year  for  so  long 
a  period.  Nothing  which  has  not  supreme  literary 
merit  has  ever  triumphantly  endured  such  an  ordeal, 
or  ever  been  subjected  to  it.  No  man  can  adequately 
explain  the  persistent  fascination  which  this  state 
paper  has  had,  and  which  it  still  has,  for  the  Ameri 
can  people,  or  for  its  undiminishing  power  over 
them,  without  taking  into  account  its  extraordinary 
literary  merits — its  possession  of  the  witchery  of 
true  substance  wedded  to  perfect  form :  its  massive- 
ness  and  incisiveness  of  thought,  its  art  in  the  mar 
shalling  of  the  topics  with  which  it  deals,  its  sym 
metry,  its  energy,  the  definiteness  and  limpidity  of 
its  statements,  its  exquisite  diction — at  once  terse, 
musical,  and  electrical;  and  as  an  essential  part  of 


180        THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

this  literary  outfit,  many  of  those  spiritual  notes 
which  can  attract  and  enthrall  our  hearts,  veneration 
for  God,  veneration  for  man,  veneration  for  princi 
ple,  respect  for  public  opinion,  moral  earnestness, 
moral  courage,  optimism,  a  stately  and  noble  pathos, 
finally,  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  a  cause  so  great 
as  to  be  herein  identified  with  the  happiness,  not  of 
one  people  only,  or  of  one  race  only,  but  of  human 
nature  itself."1 

If  the  Declaration  be  adjudged  as  reaching  the 
high  standards,  and  fulfilling  the  variety  of  pur 
poses  here  set  forth,  with  success  even  measurable, 
it  will  be  admitted  that  few  other  public  documents 
can  be  subjected  to  such  a  trial  and  emerge  in  tri 
umph.  Yet  as  the  attempt  is  being  made  to  view  it 
from  the  aspect  of  the  men  to  whom  it  was  intended 
to  appeal,  so  their  opinion  of  it  is  of  primary  value. 
Amid  the  general  chorus  of  approval  with  which  it 
was  acclaimed  by  the  leaders,  not  less  than  by  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  party  to  whom  it  was  directed, 
but  one  voice  of  strength  in  opposition  is  raised 
sufficiently  loud  to  be  heard.  Robert  Morris,  in  a 
letter  to  his  friend  Joseph  Reed,  gave  as  his  reason 
for  voting  against  and  opposing  the  Declaration 
that  "  it  was  an  improper  time,  and  will  neither 
promote  the  interests  nor  redound  to  the  honor  of 
America ;  for  it  has  caused  division  when  we  wanted 

1  Tyler,  I,  519-521. 


THE   PURPOSE  OF  THE  DECLARATION  l8l 

union,  and  will  be  ascribed  to  very  different  prin 
ciples  than  those  which  sought  to  give  rise  to  such 
an  important  measure." 1  And  here,  it  may  be 
added,  the  opposition  rests  upon  the  opportuneness  of 
the  act,  rather  than  the  manner  of  its  consumma 
tion.  As  against  this,  we  may  put  the  calm  opinion 
of  Washington,  expressed  in  acknowledging  to  Han 
cock  the  receipt  of  the  Declaration :  "  It  is  certain 
that  it  is  not  with  us  to  determine  in  many  instances 
what  consequences  will  flow  from  our  counsels ; 
but  yet  it  behooves  us  to  adopt  such,  as,  under  the 
smiles  of  a  gracious  and  all-kind  Providence  will 
be  most  likely  to  promote  our  happiness.  I  trust 
the  late  decisive  part  they  have  taken  is  calculated 
to  that  end,  and  will  secure  to  us  that  freedom  and 
those  privileges,  which  have  been  and  are  refused 
to  us,  contrary  to  the  voice  of  nature  and  the  British 
constitution."  When  proclaimed  before  all  the 
army  under  his  command,  the  Declaration  received 
"  their  most  hearty  assent :  the  expressions  and  be 
haviour  of  both  officers  and  men,  testifying  their 
warmest  approbation  of  it."1  To  Schuyler  he  spoke 
of  it  as  an  act  "  impelled  by  necessity,  and  a  repe 
tition  of  injuries  no  longer  sufferable,  and  being 
without  the  most  distant  prospect  of  relief,  they 
[Congress]  have  asserted  the  claims  of  the  colonies 

1  Reed's  Reed,  I,  201,  July  20,  1776. 

2  Sparks'  Washington,  III,  457. 


1  82        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

to  the  rights  of  humanity,  absolved  them  from  all 
allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  and  declared  them 
Free  and  Independent  States."  1  And  in  his  orders 
to  the  army,  he  spoke  of  it  as  having  been  impelled 
"  by  the  dictates  of  duty,  policy,  and  necessity."  2 
The  more  enthusiastic  Samuel  Adams  declared  it 
"  has  given  vigour  to  the  spirits  of  the  people."  3 
His  younger  kinsman,  John  Adams,  spoke  of  it  as 
"  a  Declaration  setting  forth  the  causes  which  have 
impelled  us  to  this  mighty  revolution,  and  the  rea 
sons  which  will  justify  it  in  the  sight  of  God  and 
man,"  4  and  again,  as  likely  to  "  cement  the  Union, 
and  avoid  those  heats,  and  perhaps  convulsions, 
which  might  have  been  occasioned  by  such  a  dec 
laration  six  months  ago."  5  And  William  Whipple 
tells  us  that  "  This  declaration  has  had  a  glorious 
effect  —  has  made  these  colonies  all  alive  :  all  the  Col 
onies  forming  Governments,  as  you  will  see  by  the 
papers."  And  in  another  letter,  dated  a  few  days 
later,  he  writes  :  "  This  Colony6  and  New  Jersey  are 
all  alive  .  .  .  men  of  fortune  don't  think  themselves 
too  good  to  march  in  the  character  of  private  sol 
diers  .  .  .  —  in  short  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 


.,  464. 
'Ibid.,  458. 
'Force,  5th,  I,  347. 
4  Works,  IX,  418. 
6  Ibid.,  420. 
6  Pennsylvania. 


THE   PURPOSE  OF  THE  DECLARATION^       1^ 

ence  has  done  wonders."1      Josiah  Bartlett,  ^L  of 
coming  the  adoption  of  the  Declaration  byifflbe. 
York,  rejoiced  that  it  now  had  "  the  sanction  of  t- 
Thirteen  United  States,"  adding,  that  "  the  unparal 
leled  conduct  of  our  enemies  have  united  the  col 
onies  more  firmly  than  ever."2 

Such  was  the  high  esteem  in  which  both  the  act 
and  the  expression  of  it  were  held  by  the  leaders 
of  the  time,  and  if  to  them  it  seemed  adequate  to  the 
great  occasion,  we  should  accept  their  opinion  as  the 
final  word.  True,  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  the  ultimate  acknowledgment  of  our  national 
existence  were  separated  by  many  trying  years  of 
weary  contest,  and  the  issue  seemed  more  than  once 
suspended  in  the  balance  by  a  mere  thread.  But 
this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  was  regarded  as  an  opportune  and 
comprehensive  statement  of  the  reasons  impelling  to 
that  act  at  the  time,  that  without  it  open  assistance 
from  France  was  not  to  be  procured,  and  that  after 
its  proclamation  no  overtures  looking  to  a  conclu 
sion  of  the  struggle  were  for  a  moment  considered, 
that  were  not  based  on  public  acknowledgment  of 
the  United  States  as  an  independent  nation. 

1  Langdon-Elwyn  Papers,   Lenox  Library,   New  York,    139- 
140.     The  letter  is  dated  July  22,  1776. 
'Force,  sth,  I,  348. 


CHAPTER   IX 
THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  DECLARATION 

"  Happy  is  the  nation,"  writes  Sir  Leslie  Stephen, 
"  which  has  no  political  philosophy,  for  such  a  phi 
losophy  is  generally  the  offspring  of  a  recent  or  the 
symptom  of  an  approaching  revolution."1  The  phi 
losophy  of  the  American  Revolution,  though  repre 
sentative  of  the  latter  concept,  has  underlying  it  the 
story  of  a  political  development  that  has  its  roots 
deep  down  in  English  history  of  the  seventeenth  cen 
tury.  That  was  the  age  of  intellectual  and  political 
revolt  in  England,  which  attained  its  final  fruition  in 
the  following  century  in  America.  The  Puritan 
Revolution  stirred  the  political  sense  of  the  nation 
not  less  than  its  religious  emotions,  The  intensive 
study  which  the  Old  Testament  received  in  conse 
quence,  reacted  in  marked  degree  upon  the  political 
ideas  of  the  time.  As  Borgeaud  aptly  puts  it,  "  the 
first  political  manifestoes  of  modern  democracy  were 
formulated  in  England  in  the  seventeenth  century 
and  they  were  the  fruit  of  the  religious  revolutions 
caused  by  the  Reformation."2 

1  English  Thought  in  the  i8th  Century,  3&  ed.,  II,  131. 

2  Rise  of  Modern  Democracy  in  Old  and  New  England,  105. 

184 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE  DECLARATION       18$ 

The  theories  of  natural  rights  and  the  origin  of 
government  in  contract  had  their  rise  at  this  time. 
Men  were  then  more  prone  than  now  to  seek  for  evi 
dences  of  the  Divine  Hand  in  the  institution  of  mun 
dane  affairs.  And  as  ideas  of  government,  lay  and 
clerical,  were  receiving  earnest  study  and  new  appli 
cation,  their  origins  were  sought  for  in  the  sacred 
books.  In  these  were  to  be  found  the  earliest  re 
corded  instances  of  the  genesis  of  government.  With 
minds  open  to  interpretations  that  fell  in  with  pre 
conceived  views,  the  covenants  recorded  as  made 
between  God  and  the  Jewish  people,  were  seized 
upon  as  proof-positive  of  the  contractual  nature  of 
the  first  governmental  forms.1  With  circum 
stances  arising  to  give  their  thoughts  ready  employ 
ment,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  that  the  contract 
theory  was  applied  on  the  one  side  by  Hobbes  to\ 
bolster  up  the  divine  authority  of  kings,  on  the 
other  by  Locke  to  give  warrant  to  the  supremacy 
of  the  legislative  arm  of  the  government  as  the  direct 
representative  of  the  people. 

If,  therefore,  we  would  seek  out  the  immediate 
sources  of  the  political  philosophy  of  the  American 
Revolution,  we  must  look  for  them  in  the  history  of 

1 1  am  aware  of  the  learned  treatise  by  Dr.  Sullivan  (Kept. 
Am.  Hist.  Assn.,  1903,  Vol.  I,  67  et  seq.)  tracing  the  social 
compact  idea  through  classical  and  mediaeval  authors.  But 
they  did  not  have  so  immediate  an  effect  at  this  time  as  the 
Old  Testament. 


1 86        THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

English  thought  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  in 
the  great  state  papers  which  clothed  it  in  constitu 
tional  form.1  The  principal  expounders  of  the  polit 
ical  philosophy  of  this  period  were  Hooker,  Hobbes 
and  Locke,  and  their  very  names  are  indicative  of 
the  historical  events  to  which  they  gave  literary  ex 
pression.  All  of  them  based  the  origin  of  govern 
ment  upon  a  social  contract,  the  outgrowth  of  a  time 
when  life  in  a  state  of  nature  no  more  proved  fea 
sible.  To  Hooker  and  Ho^bbes  the  state  of  nature 
was  a  condition  of  anarchy,  of  warfare  and  constant 
strife,  to  end  which  men  established  forms  of  gov 
ernment...-^^  Locke,  efih-4he~-co»4£ar-y»,  it  was  a 
"  golden  age,"  and  political  societies  were  created 
to  protect  and  secure  persons  and  property,  when 
men  became  corrupt  and  no  longer  respected  each 
other's  rights. 

As  Hobbes  reflected  the  spirit  of  the  Puritan  Revo 
lution,2  so  Locke  "  expounded  the  principles  of  the 
Revolution  of  1688,  and  his  writings  became  the 

1  See    in    this    connection,    besides    the    works    of    Hooker, 
Hobbes,  Locke,  Sydney,  and  the  political  writings  of  Milton, 
the   excellent   and   suggestive   study  by  A.   L.   Lowell  in  his 
Essays   on    Government,    Merriam's    Am.   Pol.    Theories,    Sir 
Leslie   Stephens'   English   Thought  in   the   i8th   Century,   Sir 
James    Fitzjames    Stephens'    Horcs    Sabbaticce,    Vols.    II    and 
III,  Bryce's  Studies  in  History  and  Jurisprudence,  McLaugh- 
lin  in  Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  Vol.  V,  No.  3,  467  et  seq.,  and  Ritchie's 
Natural  Rights. 

2  The  Leviathan  appeared  in  1651. 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE  DECLARATION 

political  bible  of  the  following  century,  the  source 
from  which  later  writers  drew  their  arguments,  and 
the  authority  to  which  they  appealed  in  default  of 
arguments."1  And  just  as  the  events  of  1688  and 
the  final  establishment  of  the  supremacy  of  Parlia-  x 
ment  could  not  have  occurred  without  the  previous 
period  of  revolution  and  reaction,  so  Locke's  Treat-  . 
ises  on  Government  (issued  in  1690),  it  may  safely 
be  said,  would  never  have  seen  the  light  of  day 
had  he  not  lived  through  this  formative  time,  and 
had  the  thoughts  of  Hooker  and  Hobbes  and  Sir 
Robert  Filmer  not  been  set  down  to  spur  him  on  to 
the  expression  of  his  views.  Since  Locke  proved 
the  "  formal  expounder  of  Whiggism  "2  in  America 
to  a  greater  extent  even  than  in  England,  it  is  to  his 
ideas  that  it  will  prove  most  profitable  to  devote 
attention.  "  His  chief  influence,"  it  has  been  well 
said,  "  was  in  popularizing  a  convenient  formula  for 
enforcing  the  responsibility  of  governors,"3  and  his 
arguments  were  not  less  familiar  to  every  political 
thinker  and  writer  in  America,  than  was  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  Old  and  New  England  Puritans. 

Beginning  in  his  second  Treatise  (the  first  being 
entirely  devoted  to  a  labored  refutation  of  Filmer's 
Patriarcha)  with  a  consideration  of  the  state  of  na- 

1  Sir  Leslie  Stephen,  op.  cit.,  II,  135. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Ibid.,  143. 


1 88        THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

•y 

ture,  he  proceeds  to  discuss  the  purposes  of  political 
or  civil  society  and  their  beginnings,  the  forms  of 
commonwealths,  the  powers  of  the  several  branches 
of  governments  (placing  the  treatment  of  the  legisla 
tive  power  in  advance  of  that  of  the  executive), 
and  then,  after  treating  in  order  such  subjects  as 
the  prerogative,  conquest,  usurpation  and  tyranny, 
he  concludes  most  appropriately  with  an  elaborate 
chapter  on  the  dissolution  of  governments. 

In  the  state  of  nature/Amen  are  in  a  condition  of 
"  perfect  freedom  to  order  their  actions  and  dis 
pose  of  their  possessions  and  persons  as  they  think 
fit,  within  the  bounds  of  the  law  of  nature." 
Further,  "  it  is  a  state  of  equality  wherein  all  the 
power  and  jurisdiction  is  reciprocal,  no  one  having 
more  than  another."  This  state,  however,  "  though 
a  state  of  liberty,  is  not  a  state  of  license."  "  It  has 
a  law  to  govern  it  which  obliges  every  one,  and  rea 
son,  which  is  that  law,  teaches  all  mankind  who  will 
but  consult  it,  that  being  all  equal  and  independent 
no  one  ought  to  harm  another  in  his  life,  health, 
property,  or  possessions," — the  "  unalienable  rights  " 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  The  law  of 
nature  confers  upon  man,  therefore,  all  the  rights  of 
person  and  property.  It  is  not  to  acquire  property 
rights  that  man  enters  into  political  society,  but  in 
order  to  protect  and  secure  those  he  already  has, 
to  avoid  the  destructive  state  of  war  that  may  arise 


THE   PHilOSOPHY   OF  THE   DECLARATION       189 

at  any  time,  and  to  remedy  the  inconveniences  that 
have  grown  up  in  the  state  of  nature. 

Thus  "  men  being  by  nature  all  free,  equal,  and  . 
independent,  no  one  can  be  put  out  of  this  estate,  and  I  > 
subjected  to  the  political  power  of  another,  without/ 
his  own  consent."     As  soon  as  men  agree  to  asso 
ciate  to  form  a  political  society,  they  enter  into  a 
social  compact  with  each  other,  and  consent  to  be 
guided  by  the  will  of  the  majority  to  make  and  exe 
cute  laws  for  the  general  good.     "  Property,"   in 
Locke's  conception,  is  used  in  a  very  extensive  sense ; 
it  comprises  all  rights  of  any  nature,  especially  those 
of  a  personal  character,  and  it  is  the  product  of  man's 
own  labor. 

As  to  the  forms  of  government,' he  makes  the  fa 
miliar  classification  into  monarchies,  aristocracies 
and  democracies,  and  then  gives  consideration  to  the 
various  branches  of  government.  Of  these  the  leg-  . 
islative  is  all-important,  mirroring  thus  the  Whig 
view  of  the  supremacy  of  Parliament  as  against  the 
Stuart  contention  of  the  divine  right  of  kings.? 
"  This  legislative  is  not  only  the  supreme  power  of 
the  commonwealth,  but  sacred  and  unalterable  in 
the  hands  where  community  have  once  placed  it." 
But,  though  the  legislative  is  supreme,  "  and  there 
fore  all  obedience,  which  by  the  most  solemn  ties 
any  one  can  be  obliged  to  pay,  ultimately  terminates 
in  this  supreme  power,  and  is  directed  by  those  laws 


THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 


which  it  enacts,"  it  is  none  the  less  subject  to  four 
limitations.  First,  it  can  not  be  "  absolutely  arbi 
trary  over  the  lives  and  fortunes  of  the  people,"  since 
"  nobody  can  transfer  to  another  more  power  than 
he  has  in  himself,  and  nobody  has  an  absolute  arbi 
trary  power  over  himself,  or  over  any  other,  to 
destroy  his  own  life,  or  take  away  the  life  or  prop 
erty  of  another."  "  Secondly,  the  legislative  or  su 
preme  authority  cannot  assume  to  itself  a  power  to 
rule  by  extemporary,  arbitrary  decrees,  but  is  bound 
to  dispense  justice  and  decide  the  rights  of  the  sub 
ject  by  promulgated  standing  laws,  and  known  au 
thorized  judges."  For  "  absolute  arbitrary  power, 
or  governing  without  settled  standing  laws,  can 
neither  of  them  consist  with  the  ends  of  society  and 
government,  which  men  would  not  quit  the  state 
of  nature  for,  and  tie  themselves  up  under,  were  it 
not  to  preserve  their  lives,  liberties  and  fortunes." 
"  Thirdly,  the  supreme  power  cannot  take  from  any 
man  any  part  of  his  property  without  his  own  con 
sent,"  since  the  very  aim  of  government  is  to  pre 
serve  property,  and  if  it  be  taken  away  without  con 
sent  "  they  have  no  property  at  all."  This  idea  of 
the  consent  to  the  appropriation  of  property  as  fun 
damental,  is  elaborated  with  much  particularity,  and 
in  his  recapitulation  is  re-stated  thus  :  "  They  must 
not  raise  taxes  on  the  property  of  the  people  without 
the  consent  of  the  people,  given  by  themselves  or 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   THE   DECLARATION       IQI 

their  deputies."  "  Fourthly,  the  legislative  cannot 
transfer  the  power  of  making  laws  to  any  other 
hands,  for  it  being  but  a  delegated  power  from  the 
people,  they  who  have  it  can  not  pass  it  over  to  others 
.  .  .  nor  can  they  be  bound  by  any  laws  but  such 
as  are  enacted  by  those  whom  they  have  chosen  and 
authorized  to  make  laws  for  them." 

Next  he  discusses  the  relations  of  the  legislative 
and  the  executive  to  the  people.  The  executive  he 
makes  dependent  upon  the  legislative,  and  over  them 
both  "  there  remains  still  in  the  people  a  supreme 
power  to  remove  or  alter  the  legislative,  when  they 
find  the  legislative  act  contrary  to  the  trust  reposed 
in  them."  The  prerogative  of  the  executive,  though 
necessarily  extensive,  has  bounds  set  to  it  by  the 
laws  made  by  the  legislative ;  since  "  prerogative 
can  be  nothing  but  the  people's  permitting  their 
rulers  to  do  several  things  of  their  own  free  choice 
where  the  law  was  silent,  .  .  .  for  the  public  good 
and  their  acquiescing  in  it  when  so  done."  Having 
next  put  limits  to  the  right  of  conquest  which  he 
calls  "  a  foreign  usurpation,"  he  considers  usurpa 
tion  which  "  is  a  kind  of  domestic  conquest,  with  this 
difference — that  an  usurper  can  never  have  right  on 
his  side,  it  being  no  usurpation  but  when  one  is  got 
into  the  possession  of  what  another  has  right  to." 
Of  tyranny,  he  says,  "  whosoever  in  authority  ex 
ceeds  the  power  given  him  by  the  law,  and  makes  use 


THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

of  the  forces  he  has  under  his  command,  to  compass 
that  upon  the  subject  which  the  law  allows  not, 
ceases  in  that  to  be  a  magistrate ;  and  acting  without 
authority,  may  be  opposed  as  any  other  man  who 
by  force  invades  the  right  of  another/' 

The  concluding  chapter  on  the  "  dissolution  of 
governments "  is  thus  led  up  to.  For  this  two 
causes  may  be  assigned.  The  first  occurs  when  by 
the  arbitrary  will  of  "  a  single  person  or  prince,"  the 
legislative  is  altered,  by  setting  up  his  own  will  in 
its  place,  by  hindering  its  time  and  place  of  meeting 
and  freedom  of  action,  or  by  changing  the  "  ways 
of  election  .  .  .  without  the  consent  or  contrary  to 
the  common  interest  of  the  people."  The  alterna 
tive  cause  of  dissolution  occurs  when  the  legislative 
and  the  prince  act  contrary  to  their  trust,  "  when  they 
endeavor  to  invade  the  property  of  the  subject,  and 
to  make  themselves,  or  any  part  of  the  community 
masters  or  arbitrary  disposers  of  the  lives,  liberties 
or  fortunes  of  the  people."  "  Whenever  the  legis 
lators  endeavor  to  take  away  and  destroy  the  prop 
erty  of  the  people,  or  to  reduce  them  to  slavery 
under  arbitrary  power,  they  put  themselves  into  a 
state  of  war  with  the  people,  who  are  thereupon 
absolved  from  any  further  obedience,  and  are  left  to 
the  common  refuge  which  God  hath  provided  for 
all  men  against  force  and  violence.  Whenever, 
therefore,  the  legislative  shall  trangress  this  funda- 


THE   PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  DECLARATION       193 

mental  rule  of  society,  and  either  by  ambition,  fear, 
folly,  or  corruption,  endeavor  to  grasp  themselves, 
or  put  into  the  hands  of  any  other,  an  absolute  power 
over  the  lives,  liberties  and  estates  of  the  people; 
by  this  breach  of  trust  they  forfeit  the  power  the 
people  had  put  into  their  hands  for  quite  contrary 
ends,  and  it  devolves  to  the  people,  who  have  a  right 
to  resume  their  original  liberty,  and  by  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  new  legislative  (such  as  they  shall 
think  fit),  provide  for  their  own  safety  and  security, 
which  is  the  end  for  which  they  are  in  society." 

Such  is,  in  outline,  the  theory  of  government  as 
expounded  by  John  Locke.  It  displays  in  almost 
every  part  the  doctrines  made  familiar  by  the  Revo 
lution  of  1688.  Moreover,  as  the  political  excite 
ment  died  down  in  England  with  the  settlement  in 
1689  of  the  great  question  that  had  agitated  the 
country  for  half  a  century,  and  as  the  Whigs,  the 
exponents  of  these  ideas,  were  in  almost  constant 
power  until  the  accession  of  George  III,  contributing 
so  greatly  to  the  ascendancy  of  the  country,  there 
naturally  ensued  a  period  of  political  contentment. 
During  this,  as  the  supremacy  of  Parliament  had 
been  established,  the  theory  of  the  social  compact 
and  of  the  division  of  the  powers  of  government 
was  gradually  lost  sight  of,  so  that  when  a  forceful 
monarch  like  George  III  came  to  the  throne,  he  was 
able  by  his  dominating  personality  and  his  easy  con- 
13 


194         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

science  to  make  himself  practical  dictator,  within  the 
bounds  of  the  British  constitution. 

But  in  America  other  conditions  produced  differ 
ent  results.  In  the  nearly  seventy  years  succeed 
ing  the  Revolution  of  1688,  great  problems  of 
government  were  being  worked  out  anew.  That 
period  saw  the  evolution  of  the  legislature  in  all  the 
colonies  to  a  position  of  authority  greater  almost 
within  its  confined  limits,  than  had  been  attained  by 
Parliament  at  home.  And  whereas  the  conditions 
in  England  allowed  of  the  predominance  of  a  force 
ful  individual  over  the  will  of  the  nation,  the  more 
democratic  character  of  political  institutions  in 
America  saw  the  ever-increasing  strengthening  of 
the  will  of  the  people  through  their  legislatures. 
During  all  this  period  parliamentary  authority  was 
little  exercised  over  the  colonies,  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  much  controversy  arose  between  the  King, 
as  one  party  to  a  compact  (of  which  the  charters 
were  the  outward  expression),  and  the  colonists 
through  their  legislatures  as  the  other.  The  colonists 
came  to  ignore  the  British  Parliament  in  large  meas 
ure,  to  look  upon  their  own  legislatures  as  taking  its 
place  in  their  life,  and  to  view  the  crown,  from 
which  had  issued  their  charters  and  privileges,  as 
the  connecting  bond  between  them  and  the  home  gov 
ernment.  When,  therefore,  the  attempt  was  made 
to  revive  some  of  the  lost  authority  of  Parliament, 
I 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE  DECLARATION       195 

under  Grenville  in  1763,  it  met  first  with  remon 
strance,  then  with  opposition,  and  later  with  revo 
lution.  But  the  authority  of  the  crown,  even  though 
it  might  be  thought  to  be  abused,  was  not  seriously 
questioned.  The  limits  to  it,  it  was  assumed,  had 
been  set  by  the  Revolution  of  1688,  and  it  was  only 
when  these  were  believed  to  have  been  exceeded  that 
the  final  stage  of  opposition  to  what  was  regarded 
as  the  unconstitutional  aggression  of  the  crown,  was 
entered  upon. 

n  this  contest *the  theories  of  the  origin  and  end 
of  government,  and  the  relations  of  the  colonies  to 
Great  Britain  were  threshed  over  to  such  an  extent 
that  every  thinking  man  knew  the  value  of  the  grain 
winnowed  out.  Otis,  the  Adamses,  Stephen  Hop 
kins,  Daniel  Dulany,  Richard  Bland,  Dickinson, 
Wilson,  Hamilton,  and  Jefferson,  to  mention  only 
the  more  important,  all  lent  a  helping  hand.  And 
though  they  differed  in  details  and  occasionally  in 
results,  they  were  in  substantial  agreement  upon  the 
following  points.  Before  the  time  of  the  institution 
of  government  men  were  in  a  state  of  nature,  and  in 
possession  of  certain  natural  rights,  life,  liberty  and 
property,  which  are  antecedent  to  all  rights  acquired 
under  government,  and  hence  transcend  them.  In 
this  state  each  man  is  perfectly  free  and  independent, 
and  no  man  is  born  ruler  of  others,  but  all  are  cre 
ated  free  and  equal  in  the  right  to  rule  themselves. 


196         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

As  certain  inconveniences  arise  under  these  condi 
tions,  however,  men  enter  into  a  social  contract,  by 
their  own  consent  agreeing  to  form  governments 
and  give  up  certain  of  their  inherent  rights,  that  they 
may  thereby  ensure  others  to  themselves  and  to  the 
body  politic  which  they  institute,  but  especially  that 
they  may  be  rendered  the  more  secure  in  the  pos 
session  of  their  property.  As  their  consent  is  neces 
sary  to  this  action,  it  follows  that  none  of  their 
property  can  be  taken  without  this  consent,  given  in 
person  or  by  representatives  chosen  for  that  pur 
pose.  Hence  "  taxation  without  representation  is 
tyranny."  The  right  to  representation,  and  of  de 
termination  as  to  the  disposal  of  property,  was  not 
one  derived  from  the  British  constitution,  but  is  one 
of  the  inherent  rights  of  man  which  no  authority  can 
take  away.  Taxation  without  representation  was 
slavery,  taxation  with  representation  was  freedom. 
They  had  grown  accustomed  to  the  latter  and  would 
not  submit  to  the  former.  Underlying  the  theory 
of  natural  rights  and  of  the  consent  of  the  governed 
was  the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty.  "  That 
the  people  are  the  basis  of  all  legitimate  political 
authority  was  a  proposition  which  was  little  disputed 
at  this  time.  .  .  .  The  inherent  and  inalienable 
sovereignty  of  the  people  was  therefore  assumed  as 
a  political  principle  of  incontestable  validity, — a  pre 
mise  which  could  not  be  assailed.  Although  fre- 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE  DECLARATION       197 

quent  reference  was  made  to  this  doctrine,  there  was 
little  attempt  at  scientific  discussion  of  the  idea :  it 
seemed,  indeed,  to  be  so  generally  recognized  that 
elaborate  argument  upon  the  question  was  super 
fluous."1  Side  by  side  with  these  views  went  that 
of  the  sacredness  of  the  right  of  revolution,  which 
was  accepted  with  no  less  unanimity  than  that  of 
popular  sovereignty. .  To  defend  their  property 
against  aggression  was  not  only  a  right  but  a  duty, 
and  if  in  that  defense  governments  were  overturnedA 
it  was  but  the  alternative  to  submission  and  slaveryy 
But  brief  consideration  of  this  analysis  of  the 
views  of  the  Fathers  is  requisite  to  discern  in  how 
much  they  breathe  the  spirit  of  Locke  throughout. 
By  them  none  was  more  often  quoted,  none  more 
frequently  appealed  to,  to  justify  the  rectitude  of 
their  convictions.  To  no  writer  was  he  unfamiliar, 
and  his  very  words  were  reproduced  by  many  to 
help  make  a  telling  point.  And  of  no  one  are  these 
statements  so  true  as  of  Jefferson,  to  whose  meta 
physical  mind  Locke  seems  to  have  made  an  especial 
appeal.  Hooker  and  Hobbes  and  Sydney,  too,  re 
ceive  their  fair  share  of  attention,  but  in  no  sense 
to  the  same  extent  as  Locke.  There  was  a  time, 
now  happily  gone  forever,  when  it  was  the  fashion 
sneeringly  to  pass  by  the  philosophy  of  the  Declara 
tion  with  a  brief  reference  to  its  French  origin. 

1  Merriam,   op.  cit.,  53-4. 


198          THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

But  this  was  the  result  of  a  superficial  confusion 
of  apparent  similarity  with  derivation.  A  year 
before  Rousseau's  Contrat  Social  made  its  appear 
ance,  Otis  had  produced  the  first  of  his  pamphlets, 
and  before  Rousseau's  work  was  known  in  this 
country,  had  issued  his  Rights  of  the  Colonists 
Asserted.  These  two  works,  full  of  the  English 
political  thought  of  the  seventeenth  century,  were 
the  direct  antecedents  to  all  the  polemics  of  the  fol 
lowing  years,  and  contained  the  substance  of  the 
ideas  that  grew  to  be  the  familiars  of  the  people. 
Montesquieu,  it  is  true,  was  well-known  and  often 
cited  in  their  arguments,  but  the  views  he  held  dis 
tinctly  showed  the  influence  of  his  visit  to  England 
and  of  the  philosophy  of  Locke.  In  fact,  the  doc 
trine  of  the  separation  of  powers,  upon  which  Mon 
tesquieu  laid  so  much  stress,  and  which  is  perhaps 
the  best  known  of  his  contributions  to  political  sci 
ence,  is  not  much  more  than  a  reproduction  of  the 
gist  of  Locke's  twelfth  chapter.  But  we  search  the 
American  pamphlets  of  the  time  in  vain  for  any 
references  to  Rousseau's  theories.  And  why  should 
they  have  been  resorted  to  when  in  their  own  lan 
guage  their  own  views  were  expressed  to  such  good 
purpose  and  effect? 

But  it  would  never  have  been  possible  to  base  a 
revolution  in  large  measure  upon  a  political  philoso 
phy,  had  the  principles  of  that  philosophy  not  been 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE   DECLARATION       199 

so  frequently  reiterated  as  to  become  the  common 
property  of  the  people,  and  if  its  application  to  Eng 
lish  history  had  not  been  so  well  understood.  The 
contentions  of  the  colonial  leaders  of  thought  were 
voiced  in  some  sixty  pamphlets,  to  mention  only  the 
more  important,  produced  between  the  years  1761  / 
and  17/6.  Not  one  failed  to  ground  its  argument 
as  much  upon  theories  of  natural  right  and  social  J 
compact,  as  upon  rights  possessed  under  the  British 
constitution.  This  does  not  take  into  account  the 
great  multitude  of  contributions  that  filled  the 
gazettes,  from  the  days  of  Otis's  stand  against 
Writs  of  Assistance  to  those  of  1776,  when  discus 
sions  favoring  and  opposing  independence  crowded 
the  columns  of  every  number  of  every  issue.  But 
this  was  not  all.  Petitions  and  resolutions  of  co 
lonial  assemblies  and  committees,  drawn  by  the  very 
men  who  were  disseminating  their  views  by  means 
of  pamphlets,  served  but  to  echo  the  sentiments  of 
the  disputants,  making  them  resound  throughout 
the  land.  Interpretations  of  the  British  constitu 
tion  and  of  its  relation  to  the  colonies,  went  side  by 
side  with  the  assumption  of  natural  rights,  espe-] 
daily  in  the  earlier  stages,  as  witness  the  Declara 
tion  of  Rights  of  1774.  ^Therefore,  when  the  time 
was  ripe  to  state  the  reasons  for  it  and  to  declare 
independence,  the  popular  mind  had  been  well  pre 
pared  for  its  reception.  Every  man  knew,  or 


2OO         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

thought  he  knew  perfectly,  what  were  his  rights  by 
nature  as  well  as  those  which  were  his  by  reason  of 
his  understanding  of  the  British  constitution.  And 
every  man  knew,  or  thought  he  knew,  how  in  the 
previous  fifteen  years  these  rights  had  been  in 
fringed  upon.  When  the  time  for  independence 
came  he  could  therefore  be  appealed  to  for  support 
upon  philosophic  as  well  as  upon  constitutional 
grounds,  with  the  full  assurance  that  these  appeals 
would  fall  upon  welcoming  ears."/ 

i  In  stating  the  case  finally,  it  had  to  be  put  upon  the 
highest  plane  that  the  exigencies  would  allow,  to 
intermingle  with  a  maximum  of  fact  a  modicum  of 
idealism.  The  opening  paragraphs  of  the  Declara- 
»  tion  of  Independence  represent  this  idealistic  phi 
losophy.  Jefferson,  practical  man  that  he  was,  no 
more  pretended  to  believe  that  the  ideals  which  he 
was  giving  voice  to  were  attainable,  or  were  at 
tained,  at  the  time  he  was  writing  the  Declaration, 
than  he  later  believed  that  the  constitution  was  the 
most  perfect  instrument  of  government  that  could 
be  devised.  But  this  was  no  reason  for  not  setting 
down  the  current  high-minded  conceptions  of  the 
origin  and  end  of  government.  When,  therefore, 
he  wrote  of  the  self-evident  truths,  "  that  all  men  are 

.  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Crea 
tor  with  certain  inalienable  Rights;  that  among 
these  are  Life,  Liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  Happi- 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE  DECLARATION      2OI 

ness.  That  to  secure  these  rights,  Governments  are 
instituted  among  Men,  deriving  their  just  powers 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed, — That  whenever 
any  Form  of  Government  becomes  destructive  of 
these  ends,  it  is  the  Right  of  the  People  to  alter  or 
abolish  it,  and  to  institute  new  Government,  laying 
its  foundation  on  such  principles  and  organizing 
its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most 
likely  to  effect  their  Safety  and  Happiness,"  he  was 
but  giving  terse  expression  to  the  widely  diffused 
convictions  of  the  period.  And  in  doing  this  he 
sought  out  the  best  model,  and  repeated  the  con 
cepts,  often  even  the  very  phraseology  and  argu 
ments,  of  his  master  John  Locke.1 

And  as  Jefferson  was  stating  a  political  and  not 
a  moral  philosophy,  when  he  wrote  that  all  men 
are  created  equal,2  he  conceived  equality  iii  the 
sense  of  political  equality,  which  was  the  general 

1  A  reading  of  Locke's  second  Treatise  will  show  how  thor 
oughly  every  sentence  and  expression  in  it  vere  graven  on 
Jefferson's  mind.  Note  especially  paragraphs  4,  54,  220,  222, 
225,  230. 

z  No  error  is  more  common  than  to  quote  this  clause  "  all 
men  are  created  free  and  equal."  In  the  preparation  of  his 
careful  summary,  Jefferson  aimed  to  include  no  terms  over 
which  controversy  might  arise  unnecessarily.  To  a  slave- 
holding  people  the  inclusion  of  the  word  "  free  "  might  have 
occasioned  this.  Accordingly  we  find  in  his  original  manu 
script  draft  the  words  "  &  independent "  following  "  equal," 
crossed  out. 


202         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

understanding.  Not  of  equality  in  every  respect, 
but  of  equality  before  the  law,  in  rights,  privileges, 
and  legal  capacities.  Here  again  he  followed 
Locke,  who  held,  "  Though  I  have  said  '  that  all 
men  by  nature  are  equal,'  I  cannot  be  supposed  to 
understand  all  sorts  of  '  equality.'  Age  or  virtue 
may  give  men  a  just  precedency.  Excellency  of 
parts  and  merit  may  place  others  above  the  common 
level  .  .  .  and  yet  all  this  consists  with  the  equality 
which  all  men  are  in  respect  of  jurisdiction  or  do 
minion  one  over  another,  which  was  the  equality 
I  there  spoke  of  as  proper  to  the  business  in  hand, 
being  that  every  man  hath  his  natural  freedom 
without  being  subjected  to  the  will  or  authority  of 
any  other  man."1  And  Jefferson  in  his  later  life 
put  these  theories  into  practice  in  his  battles  for  the 
u^mocracy,2  as  Lincoln  did  in  his  fight  against 
slavery.3 

It  is,  however,  when  Jefferson  comes  to  give  the 
reasons  for  overturning  the  existing  form  of  gov 
ernment  that  we  find  ourselves  in  the  immediate 
presence  of  Locke,  listening  to  his  very  voice.     The 
,   third  and  fourth  sentences  of  the  second  paragraph 
.   of  the  Declaration4  are,  in  remarkable  phraseology, 

Second  Treatise,  §   54. 

2  For  Jefferson's  later  views  see  Works,  IX,  425,  426,  and 
Merriam,  op.  cit.,  Chapter  IV. 

*  Works,  I,  232. 

* "  Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate  that  Governments  long 
established  should  not  be  changed  for  light  and  transient 


THE   PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE   DECLARATION       2O3 

an  epitome  of  the  salient  points  of  Locke's  last  cTiap- 
ter.  It  was  necessary  to  assume  the  establishment  of 
a  tyranny  that  abolished  the  freedom  which  was 
theirs  by  natural  right,  or  else  there  was  no  justifica 
tion  for  a  revolution,  since  government  should  be 
dissolved  only  by  reason  of  the  specific  usurpations 
already  cited. 

The  investigation  into  the  adequacy  of  the  facts 
which  Jefferson  next  proceeds  to  submit  to  a  candid 
world,  to  prove  the  righteousness  of  his  reasoning, 
will  form  the  subject  of  the  next  chapters.  And 
bound  up  with  these  facts  are  the  colonial  conten 
tions  respecting  the  constitutional  relations  between 
the  colonies  and  the  home  government,  and  the 
rights  and  privileges  to  which  by  their  charters 
they  were  entitled  as  free-born  English  citizens,  as 
announced  in  the  declaration  of  rights  of  1774. 

The  influence  of  the  Declaration  upon  our  polit 
ical  institutions  (or  rather  the  influence  of  the  ideas 

causes ;  and  accordingly  all  experience  hath  shown,  that  man 
kind  are  more  disposed  to  suffer,  while  evils  are  sufferable, 
than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which 
they  are  accustomed.  But  when  a  long  train  of  abuses  and 
usurpations,  pursuing  invariably  the  same  Object  evinces  a 
design  to  reduce  them  under  absolute  Despotism,  it  is  their 
right,  it  is  their  duty,  to  throw  off  such  Government,  and  to 
provide  new  Guards  for  their  future  security.  Such  has  been 
the  patient  sufferance  of  these  Colonies,  and  such  is  now 
the  necessity  which  constrains  them  to  alter  their  former 
Systems  of  Government." 


2O4         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

of  which  is  was  the  summary  expression)  has  been 
profound.  The  concepts  outlined  above  were  the 
fundamental  ideas  of  the  men  who  were  given  the 
task  of  establishing  the  plans  of  government  fash 
ioned  during  and  immediately  following  the  revolu 
tion.  And  inasmuch  as  no  small  part  of  their 
preaching  was  that  the  ultimate  seat  of  power  was 
in  the  people,  to  the  people  was  given  a  greater 
share  in  the  control  of  government  than  the  world 
had  ever  before  been  witness  to.1  No  constitution 
failed  to  include  the  philosophy  of  the  Declaration 
in  some  form,  though  it  was  not  adopted  to 
the  same  extent  by  all.  It  appears  in  those  of 
Massachusetts  and  Virginia,  in  respect  of  the  rea 
sons  for  instituting  governments,  and  in  them  all 
in  respect  of  the  looseness  of  government,  since  it 
was  held  that  government  was  a  necessary  evil  and 
the  less  of  it  there  was  the  better  for  the  happiness 
of  the  individual  and  society.  This  idea  was  given 
its  most  striking  expression  in  the  Articles  of  Con 
federation,  which  soon  proved  to  be  but  the  "  rope 
of  sand  "  its  framers  designed. 

Again,  the  separation  of  powers,  made  familiar 
by  Montesquieu,  was  characteristic  of  all,  though 
the  legislature,  so  much  exalted  by  Locke  as  the 

1  See  the  constitutions  of  Massachusetts,  Virginia,  North 
and  South  Carolina,  and  Pennsylvania,  in  Poore's  Charters 
and  Constitutions. 


THE    PHILOSOPHY   OF   THE   DECLARATION       2O5 

exponent  of  the  popular  will,  was  now  given  as 
great  prominence  as  Parliament  had  acquired  in 
England.  Coincident  to  this  was  the  jealousy^^of 
the  executive,  and  his  power  was  consequently  re 
stricted  in  many  ways,  and  made  practically  sub 
ordinate  to  the  will  of  the  legislature,  the  imme 
diate  representative  of  the  sovereign  people.  Fur 
ther,  to  render  the  people  as  nearly  supreme  as 
possible,  the  frequency  of  elections  was  repeatedly 
insisted  on.1 

But  it  is  not  to  the  constitutions  of  the  period  of 
the  revolution  alone,  that  the  philosophy  of  the 
Declaration  has  been  limited.  It  has  affected 
the  whole  fabric  of  our  constitutional  and  legal 
development,  and  to  an  especial  degree  in  its  social 
compact  phases.  Notably  this  was  the  case  at  the 
time  of  the  formation  of  the  constitution,  when  men 
thought  and  spoke  constantly  of  agreement  and 
consent  in  the  terms  of  the  compact  philosophy.2 
It  has  pervaded  all  our  law,3  so  that  "  in  reading 
Locke  we  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  resem 
blance  between  some  of  his  deductions  and  the  doc 
trines  of  our  own  jurists ;  and  we  might  almost  sup 
pose  that  the  '  Treatises  on  Government '  were  in- 

1  Merriam,  op.  cit.,  74  et  seq. 

2  See  the  brilliant  article  of  Professor  A.  C.  McLaughlin  in 
Am.  Hist.  Rev.,  Vol.  V,  467  et  seq. 

3  A.  L.  Lowell,  Essays  on  Government,  155-156. 


2O6         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

tended  to  be  a  commentary  on  the  principles  of 
American  Constitutional  Law."  And  it  is  only 
within  comparatively  recent  times  that  the  judiciary 
is  beginning  to  free  itself  from  these  concepts,  funda 
mental  in  the  establishment  of  our  political  institu 
tions. 

The  impress  made  by  the  theory  of  natural  rights 
and  the  social  compact  on  our  political  and  legal 
history  has  been  so  deep,  that  many  more  years  of 
development  will  be  required  before  these  ideas  can 
be  completely  superseded.  And  if  this  is  ever  suc 
cessfully  done,  it  will  be  accomplished  by  an  uncon 
scious  rather  than  by  any  conscious  process.  They 
furnished  the  incentive  to  the  revolution,  as  well  as 
the  argument  for  the  contest  against  slavery.  The 
roots  of  this  theory  are  so  deeply  imbedded  in  the 
political  history  of  England  and  America,  under 
lying  which  is  a  stratum  of  the  Old  Testament  teach 
ing  derived  through  the  Puritan  Revolution,  that  it 
will  continue  to  be  popular  until  that  day,  when  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  is  no  longer  taught  in 
the  schools  and  ceases  to  be  read  before  admiring 
throngs. 

Nor  can  the  evolutionary  theory  of  the  origin  of 
government  and  society,  now  generally  accepted  in 
some  form  by  teachers  of  political  science,  be  made 
the  basis  for  any  such  popular  uprisings  as  have 
been  the  outcome  of  the  older  philosophy.  The  lat- 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF  THE  DECLARATION       2O/ 

ter  is  instinct  with  life  and  can  therefore  readily 
be  made  to  appeal  to  the  emotions  of  men,  through 
which  alone  great  movements  are  achieved.  The 
organic  philosophy  appeals  only  to  man's  reason, 
and  as  yet  only  to  that  of  the  higher  thinkers. 
Upon  such  a  foundation  no  great  social  or  political 
movement  ever  was  nor  ever  yet  can  be  builded. 
Future  generations  will  have  recourse,  in  their  up 
risings,  to  the  old  guide,  or  else  will  seek  a  new,  as 
yet  not  in  evidence. 


CHAPTER   X 

( i )  THE  "  FACTS  SUBMITTED  TO  A  CANDID  WORLD  " 

BEFORE  undertaking  an  explanation  of  the  griev 
ances  recited  in  the  Declaration,  it  may  be  well  to 
pass  in  review  the  method  by  which  the  British  gov 
ernment  exercised  supervision  over  the  colonies. 
The  commercial  policy  inaugurated  by  Charles  I  in 
1645,  and  extended  in  the  Navigation  Act  of  Octo 
ber,  1651,  was  continued  under  Cromwell  anql  his 
successors.1  By  December,  1660,  the  trade  of  the 
American  colonies  had  become  of  sufficient  impor 
tance  to  induce  Charles  II  to  put  its  superintend 
ence  and  management  in  the  hands  of  a  standing 
Council  for  Trade  and  Foreign  Plantations.2 

1  Beer,  Commercial  Policy  of  England  toward  the  American 
Colonies,  Columbia  College  Studies,  III,  No.  2,  29,  37.     The 
Navigation   Acts   are   in   MacDonald,   Select   Charters  III.   of 
Am.  Hist.,  1606-1775. 

2  Board  of  Trade  Journals,  I,  fo.  i.     The  copy  of  the  min 
utes  of  the  Commissioners  for  Trade  and  Plantations,   cited 
in  these  pages  under  the  caption,  "  Board  of  Trade  Journals," 
is  that  recently  copied  for  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsyl 
vania,  an  exact  reproduction,  page  for  page,  of  the  originals. 
The  statements  respecting  the  various  councils  and  commit 
tees,  known  generally  as  the  Board  of  Trade,  have  been  pro 
cured  from  the  volumes  just  mentioned,  and  from  Documents 
Relating   to   the   Colonial   History   of   New   York,   I,   xxviii- 
xxix. 

208 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD 


Fourteen  years  later,  by  reason  of  political  consid 
erations,  the  commission  of  the  existing  council  was 
revoked,  and  their  books  and  papers  were  ordered 
to  be  delivered  to  the  clerk  of  the  Privy  Council.1 
On  March  12  of  the  following  year  (1675),  Charles 
II,  by  order  in  council,  referred  the  affairs,  of  which 
the  old  council  had  taken  cognizance,  to  a  commit 
tee  of  the  Privy  Council  consisting  of  the  Lord 
Chancellor,  Lord  Treasurer,  Lord  Privy  Seal,  and 
others,  who  were  to  meet  once  a  week  and  report 
their  proceedings  from  time  to  time  to  the  King  in 
council.  This  arrangement  was  continued  under 
James  II  and  William  III,  though  the  latter  gave 
to  the  committee  the  title  of  Board  for  Trade  and 
Foreign  Plantations.  The  importance  which  the 
trade  of  the  colonies  assumed,  during  the  first  few 
years  of  the  reign  of  the  last  mentioned  monarch, 
caused  him  to  issue  a  commission,  on  May  15,  1696, 
establishing  a  permanent  organization  for  this 
Board.  The  principal  officers  of  state,  including 
the  Keeper  of  the  Great  Seal,  the  President  of 
the  Privy  Council,  and  others,  were  created  Com 
missioners  of  Trade  and  Plantations.  Virtually 
without  further  change,  they  continued  to  control 
colonial  affairs  until  March  II,  1752,  when  their 
functions  were  extended  to  include  the  recommen 
dation  of  persons  to  fill  vacancies  in  colonial  gov- 

1  December  21,   1674. 
14 


2IO         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

ernorships  and  other  offices,  and  they  were  made 
practically  the  sole  medium  for  correspondence  with 
the  colonies.  On  August  8,  1766,  the  board,  which 
had  acquired  a  position  of  quasi-independence,  had 
its  prerogatives  somewhat  curtailed  by  an  order  in 
council  requiring  that  letters  of  instructions  should 
be  issued  to  the  governors  of  the  colonies  directing 
them  to  correspond  with  the  Secretary  of  State, 
sending  duplicates  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  On 
January  20,  1768,  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State 
for  the  Colonies  was  instituted,  and  Hillsborough 
became  its  first  incumbent.  No  further  change  was 
made  in  the  method  of  carrying  on  official  relations 
with  the  colonies  until  1782,  when  the  secretaryship 
for  the  colonies  was  abolished. 

The  usual  procedure,  during  the  period  of  the 
revolutionary  agitation,  was  for  the  governors  to 
transmit  reports,  the  acts  passed  by  the  legislatures, 
together  with  the  journals  of  the  assemblies  and 
councils,  and  any  petitions  that  may  have  been  for 
mulated,  to  the  Board  of  Trade.  By  that  body  they 
were  given  careful  consideration,  the  acts  being 
referred  invariably  to  the  solicitor-general  for  an 
opinion  as  to  their  consonance  with  the  laws  of  Eng 
land  and  with  the  provisions  of  the  colonial  charters. 
His  report  was  usually  final,  and  recommendations 
by  the  Board  respecting  the  allowance  or  disallow 
ance  of  acts  of  the  colonial  legislatures,  in  the  latter 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       211 

case  accompanied  by  the  reasons  therefor,  with 
suggestions  for  amendment  or  alteration,  were 
transmitted  to  the  King  in  council.  The  King  in 
conjunction  with  the  Lords  of  the  Committee  of 
Council  for  Plantation  Affairs  made  the  final  dis 
position,  and  the  results  were  transmitted  to  the 
colonial  governors,  in  the  earlier  period  by  the  Board 
of  Trade,  and  later  by  the  Secretary  for  the  Colonies. 
This  elaborate  machinery  for  the  supervision  of 
colonial  affairs  worked  sometimes  with  consider 
able  smoothness,  at  others  with  great  difficulty, 
for  the  control  thus  exercised  was  far  from  being 
nominal  in  character.  The  proceedings  in  the  col 
onies  were  often  given  minute  examination,  and  the 
royal  prerogative  of  disallowing  a  colonial  act  was 
put  in  practice  on  frequent  occasions.  In  reaching 
their  determinations  the  Board  was  aided  by  the 
agents  whom  practically  all  the  colonies  maintained 
in  London  to  look  after  their  affairs.  These  agents, 
among  whom  Franklin  and  Burke  were  the  most 
noted,  often  represented  several  colonies,  and  ap 
peared  before  the  Board  whenever  they  could 
thereby  advance  the  interests  of  the  colonies.  At 
times  they  were  given  hearings  extending  over  a 
number  of  sessions.  But  the  process  of  transmit 
ting  all  laws  to  England  was  a  tedious  requirement 
occasioning  much  delay,  was  a  never-ending  source 
of  irritation  to  the  colonies,  and  caused  them  to 
resort  to  various  subterfuges  to  circumvent  it. 


212         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

The  deeds  that  led  directly  to  the  revolution  are 
easy  to  discover,  as  they  lie  upon  the  surface  of 
events,  and  are  not  readily  to  be  overlooked.  But 
beneath  these  were  more  deep-seated  causes,  that 
may  be  said  to  have  taken  their  origin  with  the 
founding  of  the  colonies.  The  Navigation  Acts 
aimed  to  control  the  colonial  commerce  for  the 
benefit  of  England.  By  restrictions  on  such  colo 
nial  manufactures  as  woolens,  hats,  and  the  prod 
ucts  of  iron,  it  was  intended  to  make  the  colonies 
"the  vent  of  England's  manufactures."1  The 
bounties  granted  for  the  production  of  naval  stores 
and  related  products,  and  the  later  concessions  de 
signed  to  render  submission  to  taxation  by  Parlia 
ment  palatable,  were  by  no  means  a  compensation, 
either  in  degree  or  in  kind,  for  the  unwelcome 
restrictions.2  As  long  as  the  colonies  were  in  their 
infancy  they  stood  in  need  of  the  tutelage  of  the 
home  government.  As  they  grew  to  manhood  they 
found  it  possible  to  stand  by  themselves,  were  able 
in  most  respects  to  safeguard  their  own  welfare. 
During  this  period  of  development,  and  largely  aid 
ing  in  it,  control  by  the  British  authorities  was  most 
lax.  At  the  very  time  when  the  fostering  care  of 
the  home  government  came  no  longer  to  be  re 
quired,  the  turn  in  the  tide  of  the  British  colonial 

lBeer,  op.  cit.,  66. 
2  Ibid.,  passim. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       213 

policy  set  in  under  Grenville.  Close  supervision 
then  succeeded  gross  neglect.  It  was  as  if  a  parent 
had  allowed  his  offspring  to  attain  majority  with 
out  any  serious  attempt  at  influencing  the  forma 
tion  of  his  character,  and  then  suddenly  undertook 
to  enforce  the  authority  that  had  been  kept  so  long 
in  abeyance. 

Again,  just  when  this  stage  of  development  was 
reached,  the  requirement  that  all  laws  be  sent  to 
England  for  revision,  and  for  allowance  or  disallow 
ance,  proved  most  irksome  and  worked  inevitably 
towards  disunion.  The  exercise  of  close  super 
vision  over  practically  every  colonial  enactment, 
though  recognized  as  a  perfectly  legal  exaction,  was 
one  that  readily  gave  rise  to  many  abuses  and  much 
controversy. 

It  was  not  without  reason,  therefore,  that  emphasis 
was  put  upon  this  serious  grievance  in  the  Declara 
tion,  that  it  was  given  the  position  of  honor  in  the 
opening    paragraphs,    and    that    in    the    first    two   | 
charges  against  the  King,1  Jefferson  leaps  at  once  } 
into   the   thick   of   the   controversy.     In   the   terse 
words  of  these  two  grievances  he  has  included  the 

1 "  He  has  refused  his  Assent  to  Laws,  the  most  wholesome 
arid  necessary  for  the  public  good." 

"  He  has  forbidden  his  Governors  to  pass  Laws  of  immediate 
and  pressing  importance,  unless  suspended  in  their  operation 
till  his  Assent  should  be  obtained ;  and  when  so  suspended  has 
utterly  neglected  to  attend  to  them." 


214         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

whole  of  the  great  question  of  the  constitutional 
relations  of  the  colonies  to  the  crown,  that  agitated 
England  and  America  for  all  of  a  century. 

Excepting  only  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  and 
Maryland,  all  the  colonies  had  fully  experienced 
what  it  meant  to  enact  laws  "  wholesome  and  neces 
sary  for  the  public  good,"  only  to  have  them  re 
peatedly  rejected  by  the  King  in  council.  In  addi 
tion,  the  royal  governors  were  often  specifically 
instructed  to  withhold  assent  from  certain  kinds  of 
legislation.  Every  man  had  felt  the  strong  arm  of 
the  home  government  interfering,  not  only  in  the 
public,  but  in  his  private  affairs  as  well.  To  such  an 
extent  had  this  been  carried,  that  after  1773  not 
even  a  divorce  could  be  granted  in  any  of  the  col 
onies,  for  the  penalty  was  instant  dismissal  to  the 
governor  who  gave  countenance  to  such  a  law. 
That  same  year  witnessed  at  least  twenty  important 
colonial  laws  rejected  by  the  King  upon  various  pre 
texts.1  The  leading  men  in  America  were  keenly 
alive  to  the  irritating  effects  of  this  course,  and 
Jefferson  had  already  given  expression  to  the  feel 
ing  existing,  when  he  wrote,  in  1774,  "  for  the  most 
trifling  reasons,  and  sometimes  for  no  conceivable 
reason  at  all,  his  majesty  has  rejected  laws  of  the 
most  salutary  tendency/'2  What  Jefferson  had  in 

1  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  1773. 

2  Works,  I,  440. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       21 5 

mind,  however,  was  the  repeated  disallowance  of 
certain  laws  passed  by  the  colonies  to  promote  their 
welfare,  but  which  came  into  conflict  with  the  pol 
icy  of  the  home  authorities.  Such  were  the  laws 
of  Virginia,  and  other  Southern  colonies,  designed  to 
prohibit  the  slave-trade  and  the  introduction  of  con 
victs,  and  those  of  nearly  all  the  colonies  for  issuing 
bills  of  credit  and  for  naturalizing  aliens.  Massachu 
setts,  as  is  well  known,  had  her  great  disputes  over 
laws  relating  to  the  question  of  compensating,  in 
her  own  way,  the  sufferers  from  the  Stamp  Act 
riots,  as  well  as  over  methods  of  taxation  and  the 
appropriation  of  money  for  salaries  of  government 
officials. 

Steps  to  restrict  the  importation  pL  slaves  were 
taken  at  an  early  date,  but  every  law  of  this  nature 
was  disallowed  by  the  crown,  on  the  ground  that  an 
important  branch  of  British  trade  would  thereby  be 
interfered  with.1  Thus  fared  the  acts  framed  in 
South  Carolina  in  1760,  in  New  Jersey  in  1763,  and 
in  Virginia  in  1772.  The  rejection  of  Virginia's 
law  caused  particular  irritation,  since  it  was  tha 
latest  in  a  long  series  of  similar  ineffectual  acts,  and 
had  been  accompanied  by  an  especial  appeal  to  the 
Kirfg  that  the  governor  might  be  allowed  to  assent 
to  it.  A  royal  instruction  was  issued  to  the  gover 
nor  of  New  Hampshire,  upon  his  appointment  in 

1  Dubois,  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade. 


2l6         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

1761,  preventing  him  from  signing  any  law  impos 
ing  duties  on  negroes  imported  into  that  colony,  and 
subsequent  royal  instructions  required  the  colonists 
to  desist  from  their  opposition  to  the  slave-trade. 
The  strength  of  feeling  on  this  subject  is  exhibited 
in  the  stand  taken  by  the  Congress  of  1774,  which 
by  the  Articles  of  Association  prohibited  the  impor 
tation  of  slaves,  and  the  slave-trade  after  December 
i,  of  that  year.  And  again,  on  April  6,  1776,  when 
the  ports  of  the  country  were  thrown  open  to  trade 
with  the  world,  the  only  qualification  was  the  re 
solve  to  import  no  slaves  into  any  of  the  colonies. 

The  attempts  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  convicts, 
'  regarded,  if  possible,  with  even  less  favor  than 
slaves,  met  with  no  greater  success.  Many  of  this 
class,  under  the  English  law  which  allowed  those 
convicted  of  crime  the  option,  in  some  cases,  between 
imprisonment,  death,  or  transportation  to  America, 
preferred  to  leave  England.  Their  arrival  met 
with  opposition,  particularly  in  Virginia,  Maryland 
and  Pennsylvania,  which  colonies  endeavored  by 
laws  passed  early  in  their  history,  to  restrict  the 
entrance  of  this  undesirable  class.  But  every  such 
act  was  disallowed.  Franklin  spoke  of  this  in 
1768  as  having  "  long  been  a  great  grievance  to  the 
plantations  in  general/'1  and  John  Dickinson  wrote 
in  the  same  year,  "  the  emptying  their  jails  upon 

1  Works,  Sparks'  ed.,  II,  496,  IV,  252. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD 


us  and  making  the  Colonies  a  Receptacle  for  the 
Rogues  and  Villains:  an  Insult  and  Indignity  not 
to  be  thought  of,  much  less  borne  without  Indigna 
tion  and  Resentment."1 

Also,  owing  to  the  scarcity  of  specie,  bills  of 
credit  were  then  an  absolute  necessity  in  order  that 
the  colonists  might  be  enabled  to  carry  on  trade  by 
means  other  than  those  of  mere  barter.  But  the 
policy  of  King  and  Parliament  was  against  the  al- 
lowance  of  any  issues  of  paper  money.  First  came 
the  breaking  up  of  the  Massachusetts  and  Pennsyl 
vania  land  bank  schemes,2  by  an  act  of  Parliament 
in  1751,  which  restrained  the  northern  colonies  from 
making  any  new  issues  or  reissuing  old  bills,  except 
in  sudden  emergencies.  Then  in  September,  1764, 
basing  its  action  on  a  report  of  Lord  Hillsborough, 
president  of  the  Board  of  Trade,  Parliament  passed 
an  act  prohibiting  any  issues  of  bills  of  credit  from 
being  made  legal  tender,  and  placing  restrictions 
upon  them  in  other  respects.  Frequent  petitions 
against  this  act  effected  no  result.3  In  1765,  when 
Governor  Moore  was  sent  to  New  York,  he  received 
a  royal  instruction  to  assent  to  no  law  whatever  for 
striking  bills  of  credit,  though  this  was  modified 

1  Almon's  Prior  Docs.,  224.     Life  and  Writings  of  Dickin 
son,  II,  413.     Address  of   Philadelphia   Merchants,   April   25, 
1768. 

2  Shepherd,  Penna.  under  Proprietary  Govt.,  422. 

3  Franklin's  Works,  VII,  429-430. 


••'• 


2l8         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

somewhat  in  the  following  year  when  permission 
was  granted  to  issue  bills  under  certain  restrictions, 
and  if  not  in  contravention  of  the  act  of  1764. 
Laws  of  New  Jersey1  (1758  and  1769),  of  Penn 
sylvania  (1759),  and  of  New  York  (1769  and 
I77o)2  for  issuing  these  bills  were  disallowed  by  the 
King  in  spite  of  urgent  petitions  in  their  favor. 

When  Massachusetts,  in  1766,  compensated  those 
who  suffered  from  the  riots^  occasioned  by  the  at 
tempted  enforcement  of  the  Stamp  Act,  pardoning 
the  offenders  at  the  same  time,  the  law  was 
promptly  disallowed.  Not  only  this,  but  the  King 
by  order  in  council,  May  13,  1767,  required  the  gov 
ernor  to  have  a  law  passed  compensating  the  suf 
ferers,  "  unmixed  with  any  other  matter  whatso 
ever."3  A  few  years  later,  when  the  controversy 
thickened,  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts  and  the 
Assembly  of  that  colony  were  continually  at  logger 
heads.  The  disallowance  by  the  former  of  the  bill 
passed  in  1771,*  taxing  the  new  Customs  Commis 
sioners,  created  by  the  Townshend  Act,  served  not 
only  to  increase  the  existing  feeling  of  irritation  at 
having  such  a  body  of  foreign  and  uncontrolled 
officers  in  their  midst,  but  also  tended  to  interfere 

1  TV.  /.  Archives,  ist  ser.,  X,   115. 

2  Docs.  Rel  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  VIII,  202-205,  215. 

8  Almon's    Prior    Docs.,    141-142;    Mass.    Hist.    Coll.,    6th 
Series,  IX,  82  et  seq. 
*Mass.  State  Papers,  306-307. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       2 19 

seriously  with  the  necessary  legislation  of  the  col 
ony.  The  disallowance  of  naturalization  laws  need 
not  detain  us  here,  for  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
speak  of  them  below. 

Passing  to  the  second  charge,  we  find  it  but  a  , 
refinement,  or  rather  an  elaboration,  of  the  preced 
ing.  The  first  intimation  that  a  closer  control  over 
colonial  legislation  was  intended,  came  when  Parlia 
ment  addressed  the  King,  in  1740,*  requesting  that 
governors  of  the  colonies  be  instructed  to  assent  to 
no  law  that  failed  to  contain  a  clause  suspending  its 
action  until  transmitted  to  England  for  considera 
tion.  This  was  followed  by  a  royal  instruction  of 
March,  1752,  requiring  a  revision  of  the  laws  in 
force  in  all  the  royal  provinces,  and  ordering  at  the 
same  time  their  transmission  to  England,  and  the 
insertion  in  each  of  a  clause  "  suspending  and  defer 
ring  the  execution  thereof  until  the  royal  will  and 
pleasure  may  be  known  thereon."2  A  case  in  point 
arose  in  New  York,  in  1759,  when  Governor  De 
Lancey  was  instructed  to  assent  to  no  law  empower 
ing  justices  of  the  peace  to  try  minor  causes,  unless 
such  act  contained  the  suspending  clause.3  The  en- ;  -\ 
deavor  to  suppress  lotteries,  then  so  great  a  factor  '' 

1  Answer  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  5th  ed.,  Lon 
don,   1776,  p.  21.     Commons  Journal,  XXIII,  528. 

2  Docs.  Rel.  Col.  Hist.  N.  Y.,  VI,  755-756. 
*Ibid.,  VII,  406. 


220         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

in  the  economic  and  social  life  of  the  colonies,  was 
a  stroke  of  policy  that  made  its  effects  felt  se 
riously  in  all  the  colonies.  Down  to  1769  they 
flourished  unrestricted,  but  in  June  of  that  year  the 
royal  governors  were  enjoined  from  assenting  to 
any  law  creating  them  that  lacked  the  suspending 
clause, — a  practical  veto  upon  all  attempts  at  raising 
funds  by  such  means.1  Special  instructions  (1771) 

f  ^  prohibited  Governor  Martin  of  Virginia  from  sign- 
!  ing  any  law  of  this  character,  on  the  reasonable 
ground  that  the  practice  "  doth  tend  to  disengage 
those  who  become  adventurers  therein  from  that 
spirit  of  industry  and' attention  to  their  proper  call 
ings  and  occupations  on  which  the  public  welfare 
so  greatly  depends."2 

As  respects  the  latter  portion  of  this  second 
charge, — the  neglect  of  laws  suspended  in  their 
action  until  the  royal  assent  was  obtained, — we  have 
a  typical  instance  in  four  laws  passed  in  Virginia, 
in  i77Cv  and  transmitted  to  England  at  once.  They 

ufc^  were  not  even  considered  by  the  Lords  Commis 
sioners  for  Trade  and  Plantations  until  nearly  three 
years  after  their  enactment.3  Three  were  then  con 
firmed,  but  a  fourth  was  set  aside  for  final  action  at 
a  later  date,  until  more  information  respecting  it 

1Ibid.t  VIII,  174-175. 

2  A/".  C.  Col.  Recs.,  VIII,  515. 

8  Board  of  Trade  Journal,  1773,  Vol.  81,  49-50. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       221 

could  be  obtained  from  the  governor  of  Virginia. 
Jefferson  gave  expression  to  the  feeling  in  Virginia 
when  he  wrote,  in  1774,  "  his  Majesty  permitted  our 
laws  to  lie  neglected  in  England  for  years,  neither 
confirming  them  by  his  assent,  nor  annulling  them 
by  his  negative;  so  that  such  of  them  as  suspend 
themselves  until  his  majesty's  assent  be  obtained, 
we  have  feared,  might  be  called  into  existence  at 
some  future  and  distant  period,  when  the  time  and 
change  of  circumstances  shall  have  rendered  them 
destructive  to  his  people  here.  ...  his  majesty  by 
his  instruction  has  laid  his  governors  under  such 
restrictions  that  they  can  pass  no  law  of  any  moment 
unless  it  have  such  suspending  clause ;  so  that,  how 
ever  immediate  may  be  the  call  for  legislative  inter 
position,  the  law  cannot  be  executed  until  it  has 
twice  crossed  the  Atlantic,  by  which  time  the  evil 
may  have  spent  its  whole  force."1 

Closely  related  to  this  grievance  was  the  oppo-  \ 
sition  created  by  the  increase,  after  1770,  in  the  num 
ber  of  royal  instructions  issued  to  the  governors. 
Every  royal  governor,  moreover,  upon  setting  out 
for  his  post,  was  furnished  with  instructions  by 
which  he  was  to  be  guided  in  the  conduct  of  his 
office.  New  policies  were  frequently  initiated  in 
this  way,  and  gave  rise  to  many  clashes  between  the 
governors  and  the  legislatures.  The  veto  power  of 

1  Summary  View,  Works,  I,  440-441. 


222         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

the  governor,  under  his  instructions,  was  always  a 
source  of  irritation,  and  was  looked  upon  as  an  in 
fringement  upon  the  legislative  independence  of  the 
assemblies.1  So  far  as  regards  Massachusetts, 
Samuel  Adams  contended  that  instructions  were 
given  the  force  of  laws,  and  thus  came  to  be  sub 
versive  of  charter  privileges.2  And  Pownall  held 
that  "  in  some  cases  of  emergency,  and  in  the  cases 
of  the  concerns  of  individuals,  the  instruction  has 
been  submitted  to,  but  the  principle  never."3 

With  the  third  charge,4  however,  we  reach  the 
first  grievance  in  the  list  that  meant  much  to  the 
men  of  the  days  of  the  revolution,  but  which  con 
veys  no  message  to  us.  It  has  to  do  with  the  erec 
tion  of  additional  counties  out  of  newly-settled  dis 
tricts,  and  with  their  representation  in  the  colonial 
assemblies.  As  the  population  spread  out  from  the 
centers  into  the  more  remote  regions,  the  inhabitants 
demanded  representation  in  the  legislatures.  The 
colonists  claimed  this  power  as  a  right.  But  the 
crown,  in  accordance  with  the  English  law,  regarded 
the  issuance  of  writs  for  representation  as  a  preroga- 

1  Greene,  The  Provincial  Governor,  162-163. 

9  Mass.  State  Papers,  307. 

8  Administration  of  the  Colonies,  39. 

4 "  He  has  refused  to  pass  other  Laws  for  the  accommoda 
tion  of  large  districts  of  people,  unless  those  people  would 
relinquish  the  right  of  Representation  in  the  Legislature,  a 
right  inestimable  to  them  and  formidable  to  tyrants  only." 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       223 

tive  of  the  sovereign,  to  be  exercised  in  the  colonies 
through  the  royal  governors.  Holding  such  con 
flicting  views,  clashes  were  inevitable.  They  came 
in  New  Hampshire,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  Vir-  \}j 
ginia,  the  colonies  most  actively  engaged  in  peo 
pling  their  western  lands.  New  York  tried  to  give 
representation  to  two  newly  erected  counties,  Cum 
berland1  (1766)  and  Albany  (1768),  but  was  pre 
vented  in  each  case.  More  than  that,  in  the  latter 
instance  the  King  graciously  consented  to  the  di 
vision  of  the  county  and  the  election  of  two  members 
from  it  to  the  Assembly,  but  only  on  condition  that 
in  the  law  establishing  the  new  county  no  mention 
should  be  made  of  representation.2  The  year  1767 
witnessed  the  issuance  of  a  royal  instruction  em 
bodying,  in  most  stringent  form,  the  design  to  con 
trol  absolutely  the  whole  matter  of  representation 
in  the  assemblies,  and  the  qualifications  of  electors 
and  the  elected  as  well.3  Virginia  felt  this  bore  with 
particular  severity  upon  her,  and  her  leading  men 
knew  well  that  Governor  Martin  had,  in  1771,  re 
ceived  explicit  orders  to  carry  out  this  instruction  to 
the  letter.  Jefferson  regarded  it  as  a  great  griev 
ance  and  an  infringement  on  the  rights  of  freemen. 

1Docs.  Rel.  Col  Hist,  of  N.   Y.,  VII,  918.     Journal  of  N. 
Y.  Legislative  Council,  II,   1594-1596. 

2  Docs.  Rel.  Col.  Hist,  of  N.  Y.,  VIII,  100. 

3  Ibid.,  946. 


224         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

According  to  his  view,  the  people  living  on  the 
western  borders  and  having  no  local  courts,  nor 
any  local  government,  found  the  administration  of 
justice  almost  an  impossibility.  "  Does  his  Majesty 
seriously  wish,"  wrote  he,  "  and  publish  it  to  the 
world,  that  his  subjects  should  give  up  the  glorious 
right  of  representation,  with  all  the  benefits  derived 
from  that,  and  submit  themselves  the  absolute  slaves 
of  his  sovereign  will  P"1 

x  In  New  Hampshire  the  dispute  was  of  early  ori 
gin,  and  resulted  for  a  time  in  the  defeat  of  the 
contention  of  the  assembly  which  aimed  to  give  to 
that  body  the  control  over  representation.  But  in 
the  last  days  of  the  old  order  the  controversy  was 
revived,  when  rights  of  various  kinds  were  being 
examined  with  careful  scrutiny  and  were  being  as 
serted  with  vigor,  if  not  always  with  discretion. 
Upon  this  very  point,  of  the  admission  of  new  mem 
bers  from  the  towns  of  Plymouth,  Orford,  and 
Lime,  "  called  in  "  by  the  King's  writ  by  Governor 
Wentworth,  the  assembly  made  its  final  stand,  and  it 
breathed  its  last  breath,  on  July  18,  1775,  with  this 
contention  on  its  lips.2 

We  come  next  to  the  three  charges3  respecting  the 

1  Works,  I,  441. 

2  Force,  4th,   II,    1175,    1678-1679.     The   reply   of   Governor 
Wentworth  to  the  claims  of  the  Assembly  is  an  able  docu 
ment,  and  thoroughly   sound  in   its   reasoning. 

8 "  He  has   called  together  legislajiyjaJjodjgs   at  places   un 
usual,  uncomfortable,  and  distant  from  the  depository  of  their 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       225 

removal  of  assemblies,  their  dissolution,  and  the 
failure  to  convoke  them  after  long  periods.  These 
need  detain  us  but  a  moment,  since  the  details  of  the 
removal  of  the  Massachusetts  Assembly  to  Cam 
bridge1  and  Salem,2  and  that  of  South  Carolina  to 
Beaufort,3  are  many  and  varied,  and  are  to  be  found 
in  all  histories  of  the  times.  Moreover,  all  accounts 
tell  of  the  dissolution  of  the  Virginia  Assembly,  in  ^3j 
1765,  after  the  passage  of  Patrick  Henry's  famous 
resolutions;  of  that  of  Massachusetts,  in  1768,  for 
refusing  to  review  the  action  on  the  Circular  Letter ; 
and  of  those  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  for 
daring  to  withstand  Lord  Hillsborough's  order  to 
treat  that  letter  "  with  the  contempt  it  deserves." 
In  like  manner,  the  passage  of  the  ringing  Virginia  * ^\ 
Resolves,  in  May,  1769,  against  the  revival  of  the 
statute  of  Henry  VIII,  permitting  of  the  transporta- 

public  Records,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  fatiguing  them  into 
compliance  with  his  measures." 

"  He  has  dissolved  Representative  Houses  repeatedly,  for 
opposing  with  manly  firmness  his  invasions  on  the  rights  of 
the  people." 

"  He  has  refused  for  a  long  time,  after  such  dissolutions, 
to  cause  others  to  be  elected ;  whereby  the  Legislative  powers, 
incapable  of  Annihilation,  have  returned  to  the  People  at 
large  for  their  exercise ;  the  State  remaining  in  the  mean 
time  exposed  to  all  the  dangers  from  invasion  from  without, 
and  convulsions  within." 

1  1769-1772- 

2 1 774. 

"1772. 

15 


226         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

tion  to  England  for  trial  of  persons  accused  of  trea 
son,  led  to  another  dissolution.  And  when  a  Con- 
tinental  Congress  was  being  called  together,  in  1774, 
all  but  three  of  the  colonies  had  to  elect  delegates 
by  means  of  provincial  conventions  or  committees 
of  correspondence,  because  their  assemblies  had  been 
dissolved  by  the  governors.  The  last  of  the  charges 
relates  undoubtedly  to  the  calling  of  the  Boston  town 
meeting  of  September,  1768,  to  urge  upon  the  gov 
ernor  the  necessity  for  convening  the  Assembly, 
which  had  been  dissolved  because  of  its  action  on 
the  Circular  Letter,  while  troops,  but  recently  or 
dered  to  Boston  to  quell  the  disturbances  there, 
"  exposed  the  citizens  to  all  the  dangers  of  invasion 
from  without  and  convulsions  from  within."  And 
in  New  Hampshire,  South  Carolina,  and  Vir 
ginia,  in  the  autumn  of  1775,  affairs  of  government 
had  come  to  such  a  pass  that  an  appeal  to  the  Con 
gress  was  made  for  advice.  The  answer  came  to 
establish  governments  that  will  "  best  promote  the 
happiness  of  the  people,"  and  "  most  effectually  se 
cure  peace  and  good  order."1 

IWe  turn  now  from  the  familiar  details  of  dis 
solved  assemblies  to  the  little  known  affairs  of  land 
grants  and  naturalization.2  The  proclamation  of 

1  See  p.  34. 

2 "  He  has  endeavored  to  prevent  the  population  of  these 
States;  for  that  purpose  obstructing  the  Laws  of  Naturaliza- 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       22? 

the  autumn  of  1763,*  in  which  the  King  expressed 
his  intention  to  erect  new  colonies  out  of  lands  that 
the  colonists  claimed  by  right  of  charter,  meant  the 
serious  curtailment  of  these  claims  and  the  obstruc 
tion  of  the  migration  westward,  and  marked  the 
initiation  of  a  new  policy.  It  restricted  the  limits 
of  the  colonies  claiming  rights  to  the  South  Seas 
to  "  the  heads  or  sources  of  any  of  the  rivers  which 
fall  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean."  Beyond  the  "  heads 
or  sources  "  was  a  reserved  domain,  out  of  which  the 
governors  were  prohibited  from  making  any  grants 
whatever.  Worse  still,  those  who  had  settled  in 
these  regions  were  peremptorily  ordered  to  vacate, 
on  the  pretext  that  the  lands  were  reserved  for  the 
Indians.  But  the  movement  had  already  set  toward 
the  west,  and  no  such  restrictions  could  check  it. 
Land  companies,  in  which  Franklin  and  men  of  his 
stamp  were  interested,  made  petition  for  the  right 
to  found  colonies,  but  met  only  with  refusal.  Yet 
the  westward  migration  could  not  be  stayed,  al 
though  this  was  attempted  by  means  of  an  Order 
in  Council  of  I773,2  prohibiting  the  royal  governors 
from  issuing  any  patents  until  further  instructions 

tion  of  Foreigners ;  refusing  to  pass  others  to  encourage  their 
migrations  hither,  and  raising  the  conditions  of  new  Appro 
priations  of  Lands." 

1MacDonald,  Sel.  Charters,  i6o6-i775>  267. 

2  April  7,  1773.    N.  C.  Col.  Recs.,  IX,  632-3. 


228         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

were  given.  These  followed  a  year  later,1  and  were 
even  more  grievous,  in  that  they  raised  the  "  condi 
tions  of  new  appropriations  of  lands."  The  royal 
lands  were  to  be  sold  at  specified  times  to  the  highest 
bidders,  at  the  upset  price  of  sixpence  per  acre,  and 
with  the  reservation  of  an  annual  quit-rent  of  one 
half-penny  an  acre  to  the  King.  No  lands  were  to 
be  disposed  of  except  in  this  way.  Jefferson  had 
this  in  mind  when  he  wrote  the  Declaration,  and 
when  he  said,  in  1774,  "  His  Majesty  has  lately  taken 
on  him  to  advance  the  terms  of  purchase,  and  of 
holding  to  the  double  of  what  they  were,  by  which 
means  the  acquisition  of  lands  being  rendered  diffi 
cult,  the  population  of  our  country  is  likely  to  be 
checked."2  Only  the  advance  of  the  revolution  pre 
vented  the  carrying  out  of  these  provisions,  which 
were  everywhere  regarded  as  harsh  and  unjust. 

Closely  allied  to  the  question  of  granting  lands 
was  that  of  the  naturalization  of  aliens.  This  was 
very  generally  practiced  by  the  colonies,  not  so  much 
with  a  view  to  conferring  political  rights  as  for  the 
purpose  of  attracting  desirable  immigrants  to  open 
up  their  undeveloped  territory.  Where  the  right  to 
transmit  his  property  to  posterity  was  accorded  him, 

February  3,  1774.  Docs.  Rel.  Col.  Hist.  N.  Y.,  VIII,  410- 
412. 

2  Works,  I,  444.  See  also  on  "  raising  the  conditions  of 
new  Appropriations  of  lands,"  ibid.,  452-453. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       2 29 

there  would  the  immigrant  settle.  Such  acts  of  nat 
uralization  met  with  no  comment  from  the  home 
government  till  the  proclamation  of  1763  was  issued. 
From  that  time  on,  however,  few  of  these  acts 
passed  the  ordeal  of  the  Commissioners  for  Trade 
and  Plantations  without  recommendation  for  dis 
allowance.  Finally,  in  November,  1773,  came  the 
royal  instruction  prohibiting  absolutely  the  natural 
ization  of  any  aliens,  and  the  passage  of  any  acts  to 
that  end.  It  was  a  heavy  blow  to  the  prosperity  of 
the  larger  land-holding  colonies,  Virginia,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania,  the  settlement 
of  which  bade  fair  now  to  be  seriously  interfered 
with. 

That  part  of  the  same  charge  .mentioning  the 
refusal  to  assent  to  laws  encouraging  immigration, 
has  reference  to  an  act  passed  in  North  Carolina  in 
1771.  It  exempted  persons  coming  immediately 
from  Europe  from  all  forms  of  taxation  for  four 
years.  It  was  disallowed,  however,  by  the  King, 
in  February,  1772,  on  the  ground  that  it  related 
especially  to  certain  Scotch  immigrants,  since  its 
provisions  applied  only  to  persons  coming  imme 
diately  from  Europe,  and  thus  might  have  an  evil 
effect  upon  the  "  landed  Interests  and  Manufac 
turers  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland."1 

1N.  C.  Col.  Recs.,  IX,  251-252. 


230         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

We  come  next  to  the  complaint  of  the  interfer 
ence  with  the  administration  of  justice  by  the  refusal 
of  assent  to  laws  for  establishing  judiciary  powers.1 
The  man  whose  mind  evolved  the  Declaration  knew 
that  in  such  a  state  paper  the  most  crying  wrongs  of 
each  colony  must,  in  some  measure,  be  enumerated. 
Though  it  would  be  best,  for  the  most  part,  to  con 
fine  the  charges  to  those  restrictive  measures  that 
concerned  all  alike,  the  most  serious  local  grievances 
of  each  colony  must  not  be  disregarded.  The  col 
ony  whose  cause  is  here  advocated  is  North  Carolina. 
And  unquestionably  the  political  consideration  that 
she  had  been  the  earliest  to  declare  in  favor  of  inde 
pendence,  was  the  occasion  for  this  signal  recogni 
tion  of  her  wrongs.  Beyond  the  pages  of  local  his 
tories  we  seek  in  vain  for  the  explanation  of  this 
important  episode  in  her  history,  even  though  it  at 
tained  a  prominence  so  great  as  to  find  a  place  in  the 
Declaration. 

The  controversy  held  in  mind  by  Jefferson  was  an 
old  one,  and  began  when,  in  January,  1768,  Governor 
Tyron  signed  a  law,  passed  at  a  previous  session 
of  the  Assembly  of  North  Carolina,  providing, 
among  other  things,  for  establishing  superior  courts 
of  justice.  The  law  was  to  be  in  force  for  five 
years  only,  and  from  then  to  the  end  of  the  next 

1 "  He  has  obstructed  the  Administration  of  Justice,  by  re 
fusing  his  Assent  to  Laws  for  establishing  Judiciary  powers." 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       23! 

regular  session  of  the  Assembly       For  three  years 
all  went  well,  because  the  Lords  Commissioners  for 
Trade  and  Plantations  paid  little  attention,  in  the 
interval,  to  colonial  laws.     Fault  was  then  found 
with  this  "  superior  court  act,"  because  of  a  clause 
that  made  the  property  of  persons  who  had  never 
been  in  the  colony  liable  to  attachment  on  the  suit 
of  the  creditor.     This  was  in  contravention  of  the 
letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  laws  of  England.    Though 
the  Lords   Commissioners  considered  it  a  serious 
departure  from  legal  form,  they  agreed,  neverthe 
less,  that  if  the  Assembly  would  amend  the  act  in 
this  particular,  they  would  not  recommend  its  dis 
allowance.'2    No  action,  in  response  to  this  hint,  was 
taken  by  the  North  Carolina  Assembly,  and  after 
waiting   a    due   season — about   a   year, — the    King 
issued  an  instruction  prohibiting  his  governor  from 
giving  assent  to  any  law  containing  the  attachment 
clause,  unless  it  included  a  provision  suspending  its 
operation  until  the  royal  pleasure  was  made  known.3 
This  had  come  in  February,   1772,  and  was  well 
timed,  for  the  law  was  to  expire  by  limitation  the 
next  year,  and,  consequently,  if  proper  provision 
were  not  made  by  the  Assembly,  no  superior  courts 

1  Iredell's  N.  C.  Laws,  Edenton,  1791,  231.     N.  C.  Col.  Recs., 
VII,  551,  557,  573,  58o,  588,  610,  623,  693,  921,  No.   5- 

2  Ibid.,  VIII,  264-267. 

3  Ibid.,  IX,  235- 


232         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

would  exist  in  the  province.  In  February,  1773, 
therefore,  when  the  Assembly  passed  a  new  court 
act,  making  provision  for  superior  and  inferior 
courts  and  retaining  the  objectionable  attachment 
clause,  the  contest  was  on  in  bitter  earnest.  The 
first  law  enacted  contained  no  suspending  clause. 
This  the  governor,  Martin,  vetoed.1  Then  the  As 
sembly  yielded  so  far  as  to  add  the  suspending 
clause,  but  retained  the  attachment  provision. 
Though  signed  by  the  governor,  it  was,  of  course, 
disallowed  by  the  King,  and  meanwhile,  as  there 
were  no  courts  in  the  province,  the  governor  was  in 
structed  to  establish  them  on  his  own  responsibility. 
This  he  did,  but  the  Assembly  refused  to  recognize 
his  authority,  and  made  no  appropriation  for  the 
salaries  of  the  judges.  Persisting  in  their  determi 
nation  to  have  the  kind  of  bill  they  wanted  and  to 
control  their  own  affairs,  they  passed  the  one  pre 
viously  disallowed,  when  they  convened  again  in 
March,  1774.  They  were  then  prorogued  for  their 
obstinacy,  and  practically  did  not  sit  again  while 
North  Carolina  was  under  British  rule.  Thus,  as 
a  result  of  the  controversy,  not  only  was  the  Assem 
bly  dissolved,  because  it  failed  to  do  as  it  was  bid,  but 
from  1773  until  North  Carolina  assumed  State  gov- 

1  March  6,  1773.     Ibid.,  583.     See  also  Raper's  North  Caro~ 
Una,  157-158. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       233 

ernment  in  1776,  there  were  no  courts  in  the  prov 
ince.1 

Our  first  thought,  in  endeavoring  to  account  for 
the  next  charge,2  is  likely  to  be  of  the  long-standing 
controversies  in  New  York  and  Massachusetts  over 
the  payment  of  the  salaries  of  the  judiciary,  and  the 
conditions  of  their  tenure  of  office.  The  question 
at  issue,  in  both  instances,  hinged  upon  granting 
salaries  by  colonial  appropriation,  or  permitting 
payment  to  be  made  by  the  crown.  The  policy, 
adopted  by  Great  Britain  at  an  early  date  (1761), 
was  to  refuse  to  permit  judges  to  hold  office  during 
good  behavior,  as  in  England,  and  to  insist,  instead, 
that  they  hold  only  during  the  King's  pleasure. 
Made  to  yield,  with  no  good  will,  to  this  enforce 
ment  of  the  royal  prerogative,  the  colonists  resisted 
to  the  utmost  the  extension  that  made  it  possible  to 
enforce  obnoxious  laws  and  decrees  by  the  whole 
power  of  a  judiciary  dependent,  not  only  for  its 
tenure,  but  for  its  stipends  as  well,  upon  the  abso- 

1Ar.  C.  Col.  Recs.,  IX,  xxvi.  There  were  contests  in 
South  Carolina  also,  in  respect  of  the  erection  of  courts,  but 
they  were  of  minor  importance  to  those  in  North  Carolina. 
See  McCrady,  S.  C.  under  Royal  Government,  628 ;  and  5".  C. 
in  the  Revolution,  120-121  ;  Smith,  S.  C,  as  a  Royal  Prov., 
134  et  seq. 

2 "  He  has  made  Judges  dependent  on  his  Will  alone,  for   . 
the  tenure  of  their  offices,  and  the  amount  and  payment  of 
their  salaries." 


234         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

lute  good  will  of  the  crown.  The  term  of  tenure 
established,  to  fix  salaries  was  but  a  repressive  step 
in  advance,  although  the  question  did  not  develop 
till  1767.  Then  that  ill-advised  Townshend  Act, 
known  colloquially  as  the  "  glass,  lead,  and  paint 
act,"  passed  Parliament,  and  became  the  law  of  the 
realm.1  The  preamble  stated  boldly  its  design  of 
raising  a  revenue  to  make  "  a  more  certain  and  ade 
quate  Provision  for  defraying  the  Charge  of  the 
Administration  of  Justice  and  the  Support  of  Civil 
Government,  in  such  Provinces  where  it  shall  be 
found  necessary."  A  paragraph  in  the  bill,  ex 
plaining  how  this  was  to  be  carried  out,  showed  that 
it  was  no  idle  declaration  of  intention  merely.  To 
the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies,  already  goaded 
nearly  to  the  point  of  rebellion  because  of  excessive 
control  of  their  internal  affairs,  this  meant  an  intol 
erable  interference  with  their  rights,  and  was  not  to 
be  borne.  The  colonial  contention  was  that  inas 
much  as  judges  held  office  during  the  King's  pleas 
ure,  if  they  also  received  their  salaries  from  any 
other  source  than  the  people  to  whom  they  were  to 
dispense  justice,  all  control  over  them  would  be  lost, 
and  no  redress  could  be  had,  when  corruption  and 
incompetence  displaced  integrity  and  learning. 
Furthermore,  the  extension  of  the  jurisdiction  of 

JJune  29,    1767.     7   Geo.    Ill,   c.  46.     The  act  is   in   Mac- 
Donald,  Select  Charters,  323. 


UNIVERSITY    I 

OF  // 


OF 

FO 
FACTS   SUBM"iTTEb"TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       235 

the  admiralty  courts,  in  1764  and  I768,1  with  great 
enlargement  of  their  powers,  foreshadowed,  it  was 
thought,  the  possible  extinction  of  trial  by  jury  in 
civil  as  well  as  in  maritime  causes.2  The  judges  of 
these  courts  were  royal  appointees  receiving  their 
salaries,  supposedly,  from  fines  and  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  of  condemned  vessels;  but,  as  this  source 
failed  to  bring  in  any  revenue,  they  were  paid  di 
rectly  out  of  the  royal  exchequer. 

The  greatest  of  the  controversies  over  judicial 
salaries,  however,  is  the  famous  one  begun  in  Mass 
achusetts  on  that  evil  day  in  February,  1773,  when 
Governor  Hutchinson  announced  to  the  Assembly 
of  the  province  that  the  King  had  made  provision 
for  the  justices  of  the  superior  court,  and  that  con 
sequently  no  appropriation  was  necessary  for  their 
maintenance.3  The  Assembly  voiced  their  opposi 
tion  in  vigorous  terms,  at  first  in  letters  of  remon 
strance  and  finally  in  the  well  known  resolutions  of 
March  3,  1773.  4  And  reference  was  made  to  this 
grievance  in  the  Declaration  of  Rights  and  the  ad- 

1  See  Address  to   Colonies,  Oct.  21,   1774,  Journal  of  Con 
gress. 

2  The  4ist  paragraph  of  the  Sugar  Act  of  1764  (4  Geo.  Ill, 
c.    15)    contained   the  provisions    for   enforcing   the   act,   and 
the   recourse  to   admiralty  courts.     A  part   of  the   act   is   in 
MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  273  et  seq.;  the  full  text  in  Statutes  at 
Large,  XXVI,  33-52. 

3  Mass.  State  Papers,  365. 

id.,  396. 


\S> 


236         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

dress    to   the   colonies    of    1774,   and    redress    de 
manded.1 

From  the  controversy  over  judges  to  that  over 
commissioners  for  the  enforcement  of  customs  laws 
is  but  a  step.  Their  appointment  is  made  the  basis 
of  the  grievance  charging  that  a  multitude  of  new 
officers  had  been  sent  to  America  "  to  harass  the 
people  and  eat  out  their  substance."2  For,  com 
bined  with  the  decision  of  Townshend  to  pass  an 
act  of  taxation,  was  the  determination  to  enforce  it 
at  all  hazards.  As  there  was  no  governmental  ma 
chinery  in  America  through  which  to  act,  a  new 
engine  of  oppression  was  instituted  by  the  first  of 
the  Townshend  Acts.3  Its  provisions  were  exceed 
ingly  modest  in  that  the  King  was  simply  authorized 
to  appoint  commissioners  of  customs  to  reside  in 
America,  with  power  and  jurisdiction  similar  to  the 
British  commissioners.  They  in  turn  were  empow 
ered  to  appoint  an  indefinite  number  of  deputies, 
and  it  was  this  multiplication  of  officers  that  aroused 
the  hostility  of  the  colonists.  Their  salaries,  more 
over,  were  to  be  paid  out  of  the  receipts  from  the 
customs,  and  constituted  the  most  serious  aggres- 

1  Journal  of  Congress,  Oct.  14,  1774. 

2 "  He  has  erected  a  multitude  of  New  Offices,  and  sent 
hither  swarms  of  Officers  to  harrass  our  people,  and  eat  out 
their  substance." 

8  June  29,  1767.  The  act  is  cited  as  7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  41,  and 
is  in  MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  321. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       237 

sion  of  this  nature  to  which  the  colonists  took  ex 
ception. 

But  little  less  irritation  was  caused  by  the 
policy  initiated  by  Grenville,  in  1764,  when  he  de 
termined  upon  rigorously  enforcing  the  existing 
trade  laws  with  a  view  to  putting  an  end  to  smug 
gling.  In  accordance  with  this  intention,  he  placed 
Admiral  Colville,  naval  commander-in-chief  on  the 
coasts  of  North  America,  virtually  at  the  head  of 
the  revenue  service.  And  each  captain  of  a  vessel 
was  instructed  to  take  the  customs  house  oath,  and 
aid  in  the  seizure  of  those  engaged  in  the  illicit 
trade  which  had  been  connived  at  for  years.1  Fur 
ther,  as  offences  against  the  revenue  act  were  to  be 
tried  in  courts  of  admiralty  or  vice-admiralty,  their 
increase  with  new  officers  became  necessary.  The 
first  of  the  new  courts  with  previously  unheard-of 
jurisdiction  was  opened  at  Halifax,  in  1764,  and 
the  act  of  1768  made  provision  for  their  extension 
throughout  the  other  colonies. 

The  next  charge  has  to  do  with  the  maintenance 
of  troops  in  the  colonies  without  the  consent  of  the 
legislatures.2  To  this  may  be  joined  that  in  which 
complaint  is  made  of  rendering  the  military  inde 
pendent  of  and  superior  to  the  civil  power,3  as  also 

1  Bancroft,  original  ed.,  V,  160-162. 

8 "  He  has  kept  among  us  in  times  of  peace,  Standing  Ar 
mies  without  the  Consent  of  our  legislatures." 

8 "  He  has  affected  to  render  the  Military  independent  of 
and  superior  to  the  Civil  power." 


238         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

the  later  accusation  of  quartering  troops  upon  the 
people.1  After  the  peace  of  1763,  the  troops  that 
t\  had  been  sent  over  were  not  withdrawn  and  provi 
sion  had  to  be  made  for  their  support.  This  was 
done  by  the  extension  of  the  provisions  of  the  re 
cently  passed  Mutiny  Act  to  the  American  colonies, 
in  a  separate  act  known  as  the  "  Quartering  Act."2 
After  the  Stamp  Act  riots  several  companies  of 
royal  artillery  reached  Boston  in  the  autumn  of 
1766,  and  were  quartered  at  the  expense  of  the 
province,  by  order  of  Governor  Bradford  and  the 
Council.  Against  this  the  Assembly  remonstrated 
on  the  ground  that  they  alone  had  the  right  to  make 
appropriations  for  this  purpose.8  In  1768,  as 
trouble  was  anticipated  over  the  enforcement  of  the 
Townshend  Acts,  large  increases  of  troops  were 
sent  to  Boston,  New  York,  and  elsewhere,  and  in 
each  case  gave  rise  to  controversy  about  provision 
for  their  maintenance.  The  clash  at  Boston,  in 
March,  1770,  known  as  the  "  Boston  Massacre,"  was 
the  culminating  event  of  this  dispute. 

The  appointment  of  General  Gage  as  governor 
of  Massachusetts  in  1774,  under  the  Massachusetts 
Government  Act,4  making  him  at  the  same  time 

1 "  For  Quartering  large  bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us." 

3  April,  1765.  The  provisions  of  this  act  are  in  MacDonald, 
op.  cit.,  306.  The  act  is  cited  as  5  Geo.  Ill,  c.  33. 

8Winsor,  Narr.  and  Crit.  Hist.,  VI,  38.  Mass.  State 
Papers,  105-108. 

4 14  Geo.  Ill,  c.  45.     MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  343. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       239 

commander-in-chief  of  the  troops  in  America  and 
the  supreme  executive  authority  in  the  colony,  was 
a  combination  of  the  military  with  the  civil  jurisdic 
tion  which  aroused  stern  opposition  throughout  the 
colonies,  as  rendering  "  the  Military  independent  of 
and  superior  to  the  Civil  power."  All  of  these  acts 
were  remonstrated  against  in  the  Declaration  of 
Rights  and  the  address  to  the  colonies  of  1774. 
With  the  accusation  last  referred  to  we  come  to  the 
end  of  the  first  division  of  grievances. 


CHAPTER   XI 
(2)  "  THE  FACTS  SUBMITTED  TO  A  CANDID  WORLD  " 

THE  master  mind  of  Jefferson  perceived  that  for 
rhetorical  effect  he  must  adopt  a  manner  sufficiently 
emphatic  to  inspire  enthusiasm,  and  yet  not  weary 
with  a  long  recital  of  "  abuses  and  usurpations," 
recounted  in  the  same  monotonous  style.  There 
fore,  the  form  of  indictment  now  undergoes  a 
change  for  a  few  brief  paragraphs.  The  King 
alone  is  now  not  held  solely  responsible,  but  is  ac 
cused  of  combining  "  with  others  to  subject  us  to 
a  jurisdiction  foreign  to  our  constitution,  and  unac 
knowledged  by  our  laws :  giving  his  Assent  to  their 
Acts  of  pretended  Legislation," — in  part,  the  very 
words  used  by  Jefferson  two  years  before.1 
Though  Parliament  is  thus  made  to  bear  a  share 
of  the  burden,  it  is  nowhere  mentioned  by  name, 
and  the  principal  weight  is  still  put  upon  the  shoul 
ders  of  the  King. 

Of  the  first  of  the  new  order  of  grievances  we 
have  already  spoken  sufficiently.2  The  next,  how 
ever,  which  complains  of  soldiers  escaping  by  mock 
trials  from  the  consequences  of  any  murders  that 

1  Works,  I,  439- 

2 "  For  Quartering  large  bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us." 

240 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       241 

they  might  commit,  needs  further  comment.1  It 
can  refer  to  no  other  law  than  that  known  generally 
as  the  act  "  for  the  impartial  administration  of  jus 
tice,"  which  passed  Parliament  on  May  20,  I774-2 
This  was  one  of  the  acts  repeatedly  decried  in  the 
state  papers  of  the  earlier  Congress,3  and  moved 
Jefferson  to  denounce  those  who  would  submit  to 
the  enforcement  of  its  provisions  as  "  cowards  who 
would  suffer  a  countryman  to  be  torn  from  the 
bowels  of  their  society,  in  order  to  be  thus  offered 
a  sacrifice  to  parliamentary  tyranny,"  meriting 
"  that  everlasting  infamy  now  fixed  on  the  authors 
of  the  act!"4  The  act  had  been  passed  to  provide 
for  such  contingencies  as  had  arisen  after  the  "  Bos 
ton  Massacre " — the  trial  of  persons  accused  of 
murder  while  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties.  i 
By  its  terms  those  in  His  Majesty's  service,  mili 
tary  as  well  as  civil,  accused  of  murder  committed 
while  executing  the  laws  of  the  realm  in  Massachu 
setts,  might  obtain  a  change  of  venue  to  some  other 
province,  or  to  Great  Britain,  "  if  it  shall  appear, 

1 "  For  protecting  them,  by  a  mock  Trial,  from  punishment 
for  any  Murders  which  they  should  commit  on  the  Inhabit 
ants  of  these  States." 

2 14  Geo.  Ill,  c.  39.  MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  351.  See  also 
Answer  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  5th  ed.,  London, 
1776,  60,  62. 

8  Declaration  of  Rights.     Address  to  the  Colonies. 

4  Works,  I,  439. 

16 


242         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

to  the  satisfaction  of  the  .  .  .  governor,  .  t  .  that 
an  indifferent  trial  cannot  be  had  within  the  said 
province."  Provision  was  made  also  for  the  trans 
portation  of  witnesses  as  well,  and,  most  grievous 
of  all,  the  accused  might  be  admitted  to  bail  upon 
the  order  of  the  governor,  it  mattered  not  how  fla 
grant  the  crime  charged  against  him.  As  there  was 
little  likelihood  that  a  British  official,  military  or  civil, 
would  be  brought  to  trial  in  England  for  commit 
ting  the  crime  of  executing  .the  law  in  America,  this 
was  regarded  as  an  unwarrantable  invasion  of  colo 
nial  rights. 

Having  thus  far  dealt  in  the  main  with  the  polit 
ical  side  of  the  grievances,  Jefferson,  in  order  that 
nothing  of  importance  may  be  omitted,  now  turns 
to  those  oppressions  that  bore  most  heavily  upon  the 
economic  life  of  the  people.  And  if  there  be  a 
weakness  in  the  Declaration,  it  is  the  failure  to  dwell 
to  any  extent  upon  the  narrow  British  economic 
policy  toward  the  colonies,  which  meant  using 
them  for  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturers  and  tra 
ders  at  home.  In  the  beginning,  as  has  been  noted,1 
the  opposition  to  the  enforcement  of  trade  laws, 
restrictions  upon  manufactures,  and  the  right  to 
taxation,  was  based  as  largely  upon  economic  as 
upon  political  grounds.  But  the  material  economic 
grievances  were  soon  lost  to  view  in  the  eloquent 

1  See  p.  7. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       243 

maintenance  of  the  right  to  political  liberty  that  re 
sounded  through  the  land.  Yet  Jefferson  had  de 
voted  no  small  part  of  his  Summary  View*  to  a 
consideration  of  the  burdens  put  by  law  upon  the 
commerce  and  manufactures  of  the  colonies,  in  the 
interests  of  the  British  merchants. 

To  cut  off  the  trade  of  the  colonists  with  all  parts 
of  the  world  except  Great  Britain,  as  written  in  the 
Declaration,2  was  a  policy  first  adopted  in  the  days 
of  Charles  I  and  Cromwell,  and  persisted  in  to  the 
end.  But  the  particularly  serious  acts  of  aggres 
sion  were  those  instituted  by  Grenville,  in  1764, 
when  he  revived  the  Molasses  Act  of  1733,  by  which 
an  end  was  intended  to  be  put  to  the  rum  traffic  of 
New  England,  and  the  rigorous  measures  already 
referred  to  for  enforcing  the  existing  though  nearly 
obsolete  trade  laws.  An  idea  of  the  full  meaning 
of  the  last  intention  may  be  gathered  when  we 
recall  that,  all  in  all,  about  fifty  acts  had  been  passed 
by  Parliament,  between  1688  and  1765,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  binding  the  colonial  trade.  Coming  down 
to  a  later  day,  we  have  the  well-known  acts  of  1774, 
which  closed  the  port  of  Boston,  and  the  acts  of 
March,  April,  and  December,  I775,3  which  effectu- 


1  Works,  I,  434- 

2 "  For  cutting  off  our  Trade  with  all  parts  of  the  world." 
8 14  Geo.  Ill,  c.  19.     15  Geo.  Ill,  c.  10.     16  Geo.  Ill,  c.  5. 
MacDonald,  op.  cit,,  368,  391. 


244         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

ally  prohibited  all  trade  with  the  colonies,  thereby 
cutting  them  off  from  all  the  world.  The  last  men 
tioned  act  superseded  the  earlier,  was  most  strin 
gent  in  its  provisions,  and  punished  with  confisca 
tion  as  prizes  all  vessels  caught  contravening  it. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  that  clause 
.  jp  which  has  become  the  chief est  of  the  familiars  of 
our  history — taxation  without  consent.1  Reference 
was  here  intended  to  (i)  the  Sugar  Act  of  1764, 
(2)  the  Stamp  Act,  (3)  the  Townshend  Acts,  and 
(4)  the  Tea  Acts  of  1770  and  1773.  By  the  Sugar 
Act  of  1764,  the  determination  was  announced  to 
execute  more  strictly  the  trade  laws,  and,  by  raising 
a  revenue  from  the  colonies,  to  help  pay  off  Eng 
land's  debt,  more  than  doubled  by  the  war  just  con 
cluded.  The  Molasses  Act  of  I733,2  the  first  of  the 
revenue  acts,  was  aimed  to  interdict  the  commerce 
between  the  French  West  Indies  and  the  colonies 
of  the  continent,  especially  New  England,  and  was 
directly  in  the  interest  of  the  British  West  Indies 
which  lost  in  trade,  it  was  claimed,  what  their 
French  rivals  gained.  Though  in  form  a  revenue 
act,  the  duties  on  rum  and  spirits,  molasses  syrup, 
and  sugar  imported  from  the  French  West  Indies 
to  the  other  colonies,  were  placed  so  high  as  to  be 
prohibitory,  and  therefore  the  act  worked  out  in 

1 "  For  imposing  Taxes  on  us  without  our  Consent." 
2  6  Geo.  II,  c.  13.     MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  249. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       245 

practice  merely  as  a  regulation  of  commerce.1 
Since,  however,  it  was  never  strictly  enforced,  its 
provisions  were  constantly  violated  and  smuggling 
was  carried  on  openly.  The  wind  thus  sown  was 
reaped  in  the  whirlwind  of  disregard  for  laws,  ex 
cept  those  enacted  by  colonial  legislatures,  charac 
teristic  of  the  period  of  the  revolution. 

The  Sugar  Act  of  1764*  revived  the  Molasses 
Act,  but  reduced  the  duties  avowedly  for  revenue 
purposes  and  made  it  perpetual.  Its  title  began 
with  the  words,  "  an  act  for  granting  certain  duties 
in  the  British  colonies  and  plantations  in  America," 
and  the  preamble  proceeded :  "  Whereas  it  is  expe 
dient  that  new  provisions  and  regulations  should 
be  established  for  improving  the  revenue  of  this 
Kingdom  .  .  .  ;  and  whereas  it  is  just  and  neces 
sary,  that  a  revenue  be  raised,  in  your  Majesty's 
said  dominions  in  America,  for  defraying  the  ex 
penses  of  defending,  protecting,  and  rearing  the 
same ;  .  .  .  we,  ...  the  commons  of  Great  Britain 
.  .  .  have  resolved  to  give  and  grant  .  .  .  the  sev 
eral  rates  of  duties  hereinafter  mentioned." 

In  view  of  the  recent  colonial  acquisitions  by  this 
country,  and  the  methods  adopted  for  their  govern 
ment,  the  tenth  paragraph  is  of  striking  insignifi 
cance.  It  provides  that  all  moneys  arising  from  the 

1Beer,  op.  cit.,  121. 

2  4  Geo.  Ill,  c.  15.     MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  271. 


246         THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

operation  of  the  act,  after  the  expenses  of  levying 
and  collection  were  paid,  were  to  be  turned  into  the 
royal  exchequer,  to  be  kept  separate  from  all  other 
funds,  and  to  be  "  disposed  of  by  parliament,  towards 
defraying  the  necessary  expenses  of  defending,  pro 
tecting  and  securing  the  British  Colonies  and  Plan 
tations  in  America."  If  the  Fathers  ultimately 
came  to  rebel  against  such  a  provision,  is  it  any 
more  likely  that  the  colonial  Fathers  of  the  future 
will  not  be  similarly  moved?  The  principle  in  both 
cases  is  the  same,  and  though  we  may  enforce  our 
measures  with  more  tact,  they  contain  elements  of 
grave  danger  to  our  political  welfare. 

The  Stamp  Act  is  so  well  known  as  to  require 
but  brief  comment.  The  main  opposition  to  it  was 
drawn  about  its  revenue  clauses.  But  not  the 
least  objectionable  of  its  features  was  the  minute 
ness  of  its  provisions  by  reason  of  which  it  touched 
upon  the  life  of  the  colonists  at  every  point,  letting 
none  escape.  No  man  or  woman  who  had  business 
in  the  courts  of  law  or  before  an  ecclesiastical  court, 
none  engaged  in  trade,  none  who  held  public  office, 
none  who  secured  a  grant  or  made  a  conveyance 
of  land,  none  who  read  a  pamphlet  or  an  almanac 
or  a  newspaper,  could  fail  to  come  in  contact  with 
this  tax  at  some  time.  The  idle  were  caught  in  the 
meshes  of  its  net  along  with  the  industrious,  for  no 
man  could  indulge  in  a  game  of  cards,  or  hazard  a 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       247 

stake  at  dice,  without  having  this  unwelcome  token 
of  the  power  of  Parliament  rise  up  to  greet  him. 

Only  less  irritating  than  the  Stamp  Act  were  the 
Townshend  Acts  of  1767,  three  in  number,  that 
establishing  customs  commissioners,  already  re 
ferred  to,  the  revenue  act,  known  as  the  "  glass, 
lead  and  paint "  act,1  and  the  tea  act.2  As  if  the 
taxation  feature  of  the  revenue  act  was  thought  not 
to  be  sufficient  to  arouse  the  opposition  of  the  col 
onists,  the  last  paragraph  of  this  act  legalized  writs 
of  assistance  in  the  colonies,  over  which  the  contro 
versy  with  England  had  started  in  1761.  Thus 
antagonized,  the  colonists  instituted  non-importa 
tion  agreements,  which  bore  so  heavily  upon  Eng 
land's  merchants  that  the  revenue  act  was  repealed 
in  1770.  Served  thus  with  the  first  taste  of  the 
results  of  effective  opposition  to  unpalatable  enact 
ments,  non-importation  followed  by  non-exportation 
agreements  were  resorted  to  in  1774. 

When  the  revenue  act  of  1767  was  repealed  in 
I77<D,3  the  duty  on  tea  imported  into  America  was 
retained,  along  with  the  provisions  of  the  tea  act  of 
1767,  which  granted  a  remission  of  the  British 
duties  paid  on  all  teas  exported  to  America  and  Ire- 

*7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  46,  June  29,  1767. 

2  7   Geo.  Ill,  c.   56,  July  2,   1767.     Both  these  acts  are  in 
MacDonald,  323,  327. 
8 10  Geo.  Ill,  c.  17. 


248         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

land,  and  was  obviously  in  the  interests  of  the  East 
India  Tea  Company.  The  retention  of  this  duty  in 
1770,  though  Americans  were  enabled  to  procure 
tea  more  cheaply  than  it  could  be  purchased  in 
England,  led  to  the  well-known  tea  disturbances 
throughout  the  country,  the  most  notorious  and  dis 
orderly  of  which  was  the  "  Boston  Tea  Party." 
Elsewhere  the  landing  of  tea  was  opposed  with 
equal  efficacy,  though  not  accompanied  by  such 
theatrical  turbulence.  As  this  tea  act  expired  in 
1772,  another  act  was  passed  in  May,  I773,1  by 
which  the  cost  of  tea  in  America  was  still  further 
reduced,  but  a  small  tax  being  retained.  Franklin 
expressed  the  prevailing  opinion  when  he  wrote, 
"  They  [the  ministry]  have  no  idea  that  any  people 
can  act  for  any  principle  but  that  of  interest;  and 
they  believe  that  three  pence  on  a  pound  of  tea,  of 
which  one  does  not  perhaps  drink  ten  pounds  in  a 
year,  is  sufficient  to  overcome  all  the  patriotism  of 
an  American."2 

The  wide  extension  of  the  jurisdiction  of  admir 
alty  courts  in  1764  (to  which  were  entrusted  the 
enforcement  of  the  Sugar  Act),  and  their  increase 
in  numbers  in  1768,  are  responsible  for  the  idea 
contained  in  the  next  charge3  which  is  closely  re- 

1 13  Geo.  Ill,  c.  44. 
3  Works,  Sparks'  ed.,  VIII,  49- 

8 "  For  depriving  us  in  many  cases,  of  the  benefits  of  Trial 
by  Jury." 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       249 

lated  to  the  succeeding.1  No  cause  was  ever  tried 
in  an  admiralty  court  before  a  jury,  and  to  author 
ize,  besides,  the  transportation  of  offenders  for  trial 
was  thought  to  add  exile  to  injustice.  Transporta 
tion  for  trial  beyond  the  seas  meant  the  revival  of 
an  old  law,  passed  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,2  by 
which  it  was  made  possible  to  send  a  person,  ac 
cused  of  treason  in  any  part  of  the  realm,  to  Eng 
land  for  trial.  The  first  intimation  that  this  act  was 
to  be  extended  to  America  came  in  1769,  after  the 
failure  of  Massachusetts  to  rescind  her  Circular  Let 
ter,  and  the  riots  that  took  place  upon  the  seizure 
of  John  Hancock's  sloop,  the  "Liberty."  Parlia 
ment  early  in  that  year,  in  an  address  to  the  King, 
made  the  suggestion  that  the  time  was  favorable 
for  the  revival  of  the  law  just  mentioned.  Matters 
rested  in  this  uncertain  state  until  June,  1772,  when, 
after  the  revenue  vessel  "  Gaspee  "  was  burned  to 
the  water's  edge  in  NarragaliseTt_Bay,  the  determi 
nation  to  punish  violators  of  the  revenue  acts,  and 
these  destructive  rioters  in  particular,  was  greatly 
intensified.  A  commission  was  therefore  instituted 
late  in  1772  to  investigate  this  offense.  These  com 
missioners  had  extensive  powers,  yet  the  weightiest 
part  of  their  instructions  was  that  which  ordered 

1 "  For  transporting  us   beyond    Seas   to  be   tried   for  pre 
tended  offenses." 
2  35  Henry  VIII. 


25O         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

them   to  transport  the  offenders   to   England   for 
trial.1 

In  the  autumn  of  1772,  just  previous  to  the  ap 
pointment  of  this  commission,  and  before  the  know 
ledge  of  the  "  Gaspee  "  incident  had  even  reached 
England,  an  act  had  been  passed  "  for  the  better 
securing  and  preserving  His  Majesty's  Dock  Yards, 
Magazines,  Ships,  Ammunition  and  Stores,"2  which 
included  the  detested  transportation  provision.  It 
aroused  great  opposition,  for  it  deprived  the  colo 
nists  of  their  dearly  cherished  right  of  "  a  constitu 
tional  trial  by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage."  The  law, 
already  referred  to,  "  for  the  impartial  administra 
tion  of  Justice,"  while  designed  to  protect  the  rev 
enue  and  other  officials,  also  belongs  to  this  category 
of  ills,  because  of  its  transportation  clauses. 

The  possible  enforcement  of  the  Quebec  Act  of 

I774,3  with  its  far-reaching  provisions  for  extending 

,*£>  the  use  of  the  civil  as  against  the  common  law,  was 

made  the  ground  of  the  next  grievance.4     As   it 

never  went  into  force  in  any  respect,  however,  it  is 

1  Winsor,  Narr.  and  Crit.  Hist.,  VI,  53. 

2 12  Geo.  Ill,  c.  24. 

8 14  Geo.  Ill,  c.  83.     MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  355. 

* "  For  abolishing  the  free  System  of  English  Laws  in  a 
neighboring  Province,  establishing  therein  an  Arbitrary  gov 
ernment  and  enlarging  its  Boundaries  so  as  to  render  it  at 
once  an  example  and  fit  instrument  for  introducing  the  same 
absolute  rule  into  these  Colonies." 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       25  I 

difficult  to  tell  exactly  what  its  effects  might  have 
been.  Yet  the  extension  of  the  limits  of  the  prov 
ince  created  by  the  proclamation  of  1763,  so  as  to 
include  all  the  country  west  of  the  Alleghanies  and 
south  to  the  Ohio  River,  meant  a  further  encroach 
ment  upon  the  territory  of  those  colonies  that 
claimed  charter  rights  to  much  of  the  land  thus 
included.  The  reasons  already  given,  therefore, 
added  to  the  opportunities  for  further  aggression 
that  the  enforcement  of  this  act  might  offer,  ren 
dered  it  one  of  the  laws  looked  on  with  the  greatest 
disfavor  by  the  colonists.  It  appeared  to  them  as 
but  another  unwarrantable  extension  of  the  royal 
prerogative,  against  which  they  had  for  so  long  been 
contending  without  avail. 

What  the  Quebec  Act  lacked  in  definiteness,  how-  ..- 
ever,  was  more  than  supplied  by  the  very  evident 
intent  of  the  bill  regulating  the  government  of  Mas 
sachusetts.1  If  any  acts  of  aggression  may  be  set 
down  as  the  immediate  cause  of  the  outbreak  of 
the  revolution  this  and  its  sister,  the  Boston  Port 
Act,  may  be  so  regarded.  None  carried  with  them 
so  much  consternation  and  dismay.  None  aroused 
at  the  same  time  so  much  stern  opposition.  Their 
great  importance,  therefore,  made  it  necessary  that 

1 "  For  taking  away  our  Charters,  abolishing  our  most  val 
uable  Laws,  and  altering  fundamentally  the  Forms  of  our 
Governments." 


252         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

reference  should  be  made  to  them  in  the  Declara 
tion.  If  the  power  to  take  away  or  alter  a  single 
charter  was  once  recognized,  the  rights  of  no  colony 
were  safe  from  destruction.  The  principle,  if  car 
ried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  meant  the  possible  abo 
lition  of  all  the  laws  developed  by  the  English  in 
America  through  a  period  of  a  hundred  and  fifty 
years,  and  the  substitution  in  their  stead  of  such 
manner  and  form  of  government  as  the  will  of  an 
arbitrary  sovereign  might  dictate.  When,  there 
fore,  the  first-mentioned  act1  abolished,  with  one 
stroke,  the  council  as  it  had  been  developed;  cur 
tailed  the  power  of  the  assembly ;  practically  put  an 
end  to  that  great  institution  for  the  redress  of  griev 
ances,  the  town  meeting;  made  serious  changes  in 
the  manner  of  selecting  the  judiciary  and  jurors ; 
and  virtually  made  the  governor  the  supreme  power 
in  the  province,  we  cannot  wonder  that  this  act  of 
revenge  upon  Massachusetts,  which  foreshadowed 
what  might  be  expected  to  happen  elsewhere, 
aroused  a  spirit  of  opposition  throughout  the  colo 
nies  such  as  had  never  before  been  called  forth. 
Therein  lay  the  main  part  of  the  grievance.  Yet 
the  earlier  decision  (1772)  to  sever  the  governor 
of  Massachusetts  completely  from  any  dependence 
upon  the  assembly  for  his  salary,  and  thereby  to 

make  his  freedom  of  action 'the  greater,  was  also 
1 14  Geo.  Ill,  c.  45.     MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  343. 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       2$ 3 

an  innovation  in  settled  custom  that  was  viewed  with 
grave  disfavor.  Also,  when  the  great  contest  was 
on  in  North  Carolina,  over  the  establishment  of 
courts,  the  attempt  of  the  governor  to  pay  no  heed 
to  the  recalcitrant  assembly,  by  endeavoring  to  erect 
courts  on  his  own  responsibility,  was  likewise  re 
garded  as  "  altering  fundamentally  "  an  established 
form  of  government. 

Nor  could  the  colonies  ever  become  reconciled  to 
that  short-sighted  policy  which,  because  of  the  spir 
ited  resistance  of  the  New  York  Assembly  to  the 
demands  made  upon  it,  could  offer  no  other  solu 
tion  of  the  difficulty  than  the  suspension  of  the  legis 
lature  until  it  bent  the  knee  and  yielded.1  The 
colonies  were  accustomed  to  the  exercise  of  the 
governor's  power  of  veto  and  prorogation.  This 
had  been  submitted  to  from  the  beginning,  and  was 
regarded  as  a  constitutional  mode  of  enforcing  royal 
authority.  But  to  go  much  further,  and,  for  so 
trivial  an  action  on  the  part  of  the  New  York  As 
sembly,  as  the  failure  to  make  what  was  considered 
adequate  provision  for  the  troops  quartered  there, 
to  suspend  indefinitely  its  legislative  functions  by 
act  of  Parliament,2  was  regarded  as  an  exercise  of 

1 "  For  suspending  our  own  Legislatures,  and  declaring 
themselves  invested  with  power  to  legislate  for  us  in  all  cases 
whatsoever." 

2  7  Geo.  Ill,  c.  59,  June  15,  1767.    MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  318. 


254         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

unwarranted  authority  to  which  the  colonists  never 
became  reconciled.  Although  New  York  was  forced 
to  yield,  her  cause  was  made  the  cause  of  all,  and 
the  voice  of  protest  against  this  act  resounded  far 
and  wide.  It  was,  moreover,  an  enforcement  of  the 
Declaratory  Act  of  i?66,1  little  heeded  at  first,  but 
now  seen  to  be  fraught  with  the  utmost  danger  to 
colonial  rights.  By  the  provisions  of  that  act  the 
imperial  crown  and  Parliament  of  Great  Britain 
were  declared  to  have  conjointly  full  power  to  make 
laws  "  to  bind  the  colonies  and  people  of  America, 
subjects  of  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  in  all  cases 
whatever."  And  the  Tea  Acts  of  1770  and  1773, 
were  regarded  as  but  other  instances  of  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  policy  thus  announced. 

We  have  come  now  to  the  end  of  the  grievances 
that  had  their  origin  previous  to  the  beginning  of 
the  armed  struggle.  For  the  last  five2  of  all  the 
long,  unhappy  list,  the  King  is  once  more  held  to 
sole  responsibility.  They  have  to  do  with  the  harsh 

*6  Geo.  Ill,  c.  12.     MacDonald,  316. 

2 "  He  has  abdicated  Government  here,  by  declaring  us  out 
of  his  Protection  and  waging  War  against  us." 

"  He  has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  Coasts,  burnt 
our  towns,  and  destroyed  the  Lives  of  our  people." 

"  He  is  at  this  time  transporting  large  Armies  of  foreign 
Mercenaries  to  compleat  the  works  of  death,  desolation  and 
tyranny,  already  begun  with  circumstances  of  Cruelty  & 
perfidy  scarcely  paralleled  in  the  most  barbarous  ages,  and 
totally  unworthy  the  Head  of  a  civilized  nation." 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       255 

events  of  the  beginning  of  the  war — the  skirmishes 
and  battles;  the  proclamation  of  August  23,  1775, 
declaring  the  colonists  in  rebellion  and  announcing 
the  intention  to  suppress  the  revolutionists  with  a 
high  hand,  and  the  speech  *ii  bin  the  throne  in  Oc 
tober  of  the  same  year  breathing  a  like  purpose. 
These  led  to  war  in  earnest,  and  with  its  beginning 
the  royal  governors,  ever  in  a  perplexing  situation, 
thought  it  necessary  to  flee,  before  the  possible 
disgrace  of  capture  fell  to  their  lot.  First  Gov 
ernor  Dunmore  of  Virginia,  in  June,  1775,  soon 
followed  by  Tryon  of  New  York,  Martin  of  North 
Carolina,  and  Campbell  of  South  Carolina,  "  abdi 
cated  government," — in  the  terms  of  the  Act  of  Set 
tlement  of  1689 — and  left  the  inhabitants  of  those 
colonies  to  their  own  devices  in  creating  new  forms 
of  government. 

The  other  acts  complained  of  need  no  explanation, 
for  they  all  form  part  of  the  familiar  history  of  the 
commencement  of  the  war.  The  burning  of  Fal- 
mouth  and  Charlestown,  Norfolk  and  Charleston; 
the  employment  of  Hessians — "  foreign  mercenar 
ies  " — to  fight  the  cause  of  England ;  and  the  act  of 
Parliament  of  December,  I775,1  which  authorized 
the  capture  and  condemnation  of  trading  ships,  and 
compelled  "  fellow  Citizens  taken  captive  on  the 
high  Seas  to  bear  Arms  against  their  Country,  to 

1 1 6  Geo.  Ill,  c.  5.     MacDonald,  op.  cit.,  392. 


256         THE  DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

become  the  executioners  of  their  friends  and  Breth 
ren,  or  to  fall  themselves  by  their  Hands,"1  require 
no  comment  to  make  their  meaning  clear. 

The  last  grievance2  refers  to  a  possible  condition 
of  affairs,  ever  dreatfedr  md  against  which  precau 
tions  had  been  taken  by  numerous  acts  of  legislation. 
Those  acquainted  with  life  in  the  South  are  aware 
of  the  fear  engendered  by  the  thought  of  a  servile 
war.  Nothing  more  horrible  could  be  imagined; 
only  the  letting  loose  of  bands  of  well-armed  Indians 
to  plunder  and  devastate  the  country  was  to  be  com 
pared  with  it.  When,  therefore,  Dunmore,  in  the 
spring  of  1775,  in  order  to  enforce  his  decrees, 
threatened  to  arm  negroes  and  Indians,  the  alarm 
created  was  widespread,  and  it  had  much  to  do  with 
bringing  into  existence  a  well-trained  militia.  The 
governors  of  North  and  South  Carolina  were  known 
to  be  adopting  similar  measures,  and  the  latter  was 
denounced  as  "  having  used  his  utmost  endeavors 
to  destroy  the  lives,  liberties  and  properties  of  the 
people."  Along  with  this  came  the  endeavor  to  en- 

1 "  He  has  constrained  our  fellow  Citizens  taken  Captive 
on  the  high  Seas  to  bear  Arms  against  their  Country,  to 
become  the  executioners  of  their  friends  and  Brethren,  or 
to  fall  themselves  by  their  Hands." 

2 "  He  has  excited  domestic  insurrections  amongst  us,  and 
has  endeavored  to  bring  on  the  inhabitants  of  our  frontiers, 
the  merciless  Indian  Savages,  whose  known  rule  of  warfare 
is  an  undistinguished  destruction  of  all  ages,  sexes  and  con 
ditions." 


FACTS   SUBMITTED  TO   A   CANDID   WORLD       257 

gage  the  Indians  as  allies,  and  Gage  issued  instruc 
tions  to  that  effect  in  the  summer  of  1775.  The 
Indian  agent  Stuart,  on  the  borders  of  South  Caro 
lina,  made  overtures  and  won  to  him  the  Creeks 
and  Chicksaws,  while  Sir  Guy  Carleton  was  making 
similar  progress  with  the  Six  Nations  in  the  North.1 

If  impartial  consideration  be  given  to  the  forceful 
recapitulation  of  the  colonists'  contentions  in  the 
Declaration,  and  to  the  analysis  here  set  down,  it 
must  be  admitted  that  the  differences  were  serious, 
even  though  some  may  not  regard  them  as  sufficient 
to  warrant  recourse  to  arms.  Moreover,  they  had 
reason  and  right, — if  not  entire  reason  nor  all-con 
vincing  right, — to  sustain  them,  amply  adequate  to 
justify  the  course  they  had  pursued.  Further,  it 
must  be  allowed,  that  if,  in  the  statement  of  the 
colonial  side,  the  constitutional  right  of  Great 
Britain  to  enact  legislation  for  the  government  of 
the  colonies  is  denied,  full  cause  for  such  denial  had 
been  given  in  the  earlier  failure  to  exercise  that 
right.  The  colonies  had  been  allowed  to  work  out 
their  destinies  in  their  own  way  with  only  trifling 
interference.  This  was  in  large  measure  due  to 
England's  neglect  to  make  the  most  of  her  colonial 
possessions  on  the  continent,  ignoring  them  for  the 
wealth  that  was  more  easily  to  be  acquired  from  her 
West  Indian  possession.  When  she  awoke  to  the 

1  Winsor,  Narr.  and  Crit.  Hist.,  VI,  Chapter  VIII. 
17 


258          THE   DECLARATION   OF   INDEPENDENCE 

possibilities  lying  in  the  development  of  the  other 
colonies,  the  time  had  passed  when  they  might  be 
put  to  use  mainly  for  her  own  advancement.  The 
colonists  had  learned,  during  the  period  of  neglect, 
in  what  directions  lay  the  opportunities  for  their  own 
development.  They  could  not  abandon  them,  short 
of  a  complete  overturn  of  existing  conditions,  and 
to  this  they  would  not  submit,  since  they  were  strong 
enough  to  make  an  effective  resistance.  Assertion 
of  rights  and  recital  of  grievances  had  been  met 
by  determination  to  enforce  submission.  Memorials 
and  resolutions  appealing  to  the  King,  to  Parlia 
ment,  even  to  the  English  people,  had  been  put 
aside  and  disregarded,  or  else  had  been  succeeded 
by  measures  more  obnoxious  than  those  against 
which  protest  had  been  registered.  In  the  Declara 
tion  of  Rights  and  the  other  documents  of  the  first 
Congress,  repeal  of  practically  all  the  acts,  now 
cited  as  warrant  for  breaking  off  the  connection 
with  Great  Britain,  had  been  pleaded  for  in  general 
as  well  as  in  specific  terms.  Every  method  known 
to  the  colonists  to  bring  about  the  reforms  desired 
had  been  tried  with  no  results.  They  had  now 
either  to  retreat  or  fight  on  to  victory. 

The  belief  in  their  own  strength,  in  the  righteous 
ness  of  their  cause,  is  epitomized  in  the  Declaration. 
The  arguments  had  been  made  before,  and  the  briefs 
submitted.  The  decision  was  now  proclaimed  that 


FACTS   SUBMITTED   TO   A   CANDID   WORLD        2  5~'/ 

the  time  had  arrived  for  them  to  stand  up  by  them 
selves  in  the  court  of  nations,  "  to  acquiesce  in  the 
necessity  "  which  caused  the  separation,  and  to  hold 
Great  Britain,  as  they  held  "  the  rest  of  mankind, 
enemies  in  war,  in  peace  friends."  Therefore,  as 
petitions  to  the  King  and  appeals  to  the  people  of 
Great  Britain  had  proved  fruitless  of  results,  there 
was  no  other  course  for  them,  the  "  Representa 
tives  of  the  United  States  of  America,  in  General 
Congress,  Assembled,  appealing  to  the  Supreme 
Judge  of  the  world  for  the  rectitude  "  of  their  inten 
tions,  than,  "  in  the  Name  and  by  authority  of  the 
good  People  "  of  the  colonies  to  "  solemnly  publish 
and  declare,  That  these  United  Colonies  are,  and  of 
Right  ought  to  be  Free  and  Independent  States ;  that 
they  are  Absolved  from  all  Allegiance  to  the  British 
Crown,  and  that  all  political  connection  between 
them  and  the  State  of  Great  Britain,  is  and  ought  to 
be  totally  dissolved;  and  that  as  Free  and  Indepen 
dent  States,  they  have  full  Power  to  levy  War,  con 
clude  Peace,  contract  Alliances,  establish  Commerce, 
and  to  do  all  other  Acts  and  Things  which  Inde 
pendent  States  may  of  right  do."  And  for  the  sup 
port  of  that  Declaration,  with  a  firm  reliance  on  the 
protection  of  Divine  Providence,  they  mutually 
pledged  to  each  other  their  lives,  their  fortunes,  and 
their  sacred  honor. 


APPENDIX 
THE  DECLARATION  OF  INDEPENDENCE 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  as  drafted  by 
Jefferson,  and  the  engrossed  copy,  are  printed  in  the 
succeeding  pages  for  purposes  of  comparison.  The 
originals  are  in  the  Department  of  State  at  Washing 
ton.  The  draft  reproduced  here  is  the  one  found 
among  Jefferson's  papers  when  they  were  acquired 
by  the  government.  Facsimiles  of  it  are  in  Ran 
dolph's  Jefferson,  and  in  Ford's,  Writings,  vol.  II. 
This  is  apparently  not  the  report  of  the  committee, 
which  has  not  been  preserved,  but  appears  to  be  the 
draft  from  which  Jefferson  may  have  made^the  final 
copy  submitted  by  the  committee  as  its  report  to  the 
Congress.  Jefferson  made  other  copies,  one  of  which 
is  inserted  in  the  manuscript  of  his  Autobiography, 
and  another  is  among  the  Madison  papers,  both  in 
possession  of  the  government.  Still  other  copies  are 
among  the  Richard  Henry  Lee  papers,  in  the  Ameri 
can  Philosophical  Society  (reproduced  in  facsimile 
in  Proc.y  vol.  XXXVII),  the  Adams  papers  in  the 
Massachusetts  Historical  Society  (printed  in  Ford's 
Jefferson's  Writings,  vol.  II),  in  the  Emmet  collec 
tion,  Lenox  Library,  and  a  fragment  is  in  the  pos 
session  of  Mrs.  Washburn,  of  Boston. 

The  portions  of  the  draft  stricken  out  by  the  Con 
gress  are  printed  in  italics,  and  those  inserted  are 
enclosed  within  brackets. 

261 


A  Declaration  by  the  Representatives  of  the 
UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA,  in  General 
Congress  assembled. 

When  in  the  course  of  human  events  it  becomes 
necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  political 
bands  which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and 
to  assume  among  the  powers  of  the  earth  the  sepa 
rate  and  equal  station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature 
&  of  nature's  god  entitle  them,  a  decent  respect  for 
the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they  should 
declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  the  separa 
tion. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident:  that  all 
men  are  created  equal ;  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  creator  with  inherent  &  inalienable  rights,  that 
among  these  are  life,  liberty,  &  the  pursuit  of  happi 
ness  ;  that  to  secure  these  rights,  governments  are  in 
stituted  among  men,  deriving  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed ;  that  whenever  any  form 
of  government  becomes  destructive  of  these  ends,  it 
is  the  right  of  the  people  to  alter  or  to  abolish  it,  & 
to  institute  new  government,  laying  its  foundation 
on  such  principles  &  organising  its  powers  in  such 
form,  as  to  them  shall  seem  most  likely  to  effect  their 
262 


ED  COPY 

[In  CONGRESlPpry  4,  1776.  The  unanimous 
Declaration  of  the  thirteen  united  STATES  of 
AMERICA,] 

When  in  the  Course  of  human  events,  it  becomes 
necessary  for  one  people  to  dissolve  the  political 
bands  which  have  connected  them  with  another,  and 
to  assume  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  the  sepa 
rate  and  equal  station  to  which  the  Laws  of  Nature 
and  of  Nature's  God  entitle  them,  a  decent  respect 
to  the  opinions  of  mankind  requires  that  they  should 
declare  the  causes  which  impel  them  to  the  separa 
tion. 

We  hold  these  truths  to  be  self-evident,  that  all 
men  are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  [certain  unalienable]  Rights,  that 
among  these  are  Life,  Liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
Happiness. — That  to  secure  these  rights,  Govern 
ments  are  instituted  among  Men,  deriving  their  just, 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed. — That 
whenever  any  Form  of  Government  becomes  destruc 
tive  of  these  ends,  it  is  the  Right  of  the  People  to 
alter  or  to  abolish  it,  and  to  institute  new  Govern 
ment,  laying  its  foundation  on  such  principles  and 
organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to  them  shall 
263 


264  JEFFERSON'S  DRAFT 

safety  &  happiness.  Prudence  indeed  will  dictate 
that  governments  long  established  should  not  be 
changed  for  light  &  transienj^^ses :  and  accord 
ingly  all  experience  hath  |newn  Ifchat  mankind  are 
more  disposed  to  suffer  wran^evils  are  sufferable, 
than  to  right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to 
which  they  are  accustomed.  But  when  a  long  train 
of  abuses  &  usurpations,  begun  at  a  distinguished 
period,  &  pursuing  invariably  the  same  object, 
evinces  a  design  to  reduce  them  under  absolute 
Despotism,1  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to  throw 
off  such  government  &  to  provide  new  guards  for 
their  future  security.  Such  has  been  the  patient 
sufferance  of  these  colonies,  &  such  is  now  the  neces 
sity  which  constrains  them  to  expunge  their  former 
systems  of  government.  The  history  of  the  present 
King  of  Great  Britain2  is  a  history  of  unremitting 
injuries  and  usurpations,  among  which  appears  no 
solitary  fact  to  contradict  the  uniform  tenor  of  the 
rest,  but  all  have  in  direct  object  the  establishment  of 
an  absolute  tyranny  over  these  states.  To  prove  this 
let  fact  be  submitted  to  a  candid  world,  for  the  truth 
of  which  we  pledge  a  faith  yet  unsullied  by  false 
hood. 

xThe  words  "under  absolute  Despotism"  are  in  Franklin's 
handwriting,  and  are  in  place  of  the  words  "  to  arbitrary 
power." 

2  The  words  "King  of  Great  Britain"  were  substituted  by 
Adams  for  "  his  present  majesty." 


ENGROSSED   COPY  265 

seem  most  likely  to  effect  their  Safety  and  Happi 
ness.  j^Prudence,  indeed,  will  dictate  that  Govern 
ments  long  established  should  not  be  changed  for 
light  and  transient  causes;  and  accordingly  all  ex 
perience  hath  shown,  that  mankind  are  more  dis 
posed  to  suffer,  while  evils  are  sufferable,  than  to 
right  themselves  by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which 
they  are  accustomed?/  But  when  a  long  train  of 
abuses  and  usurpations,  pursuing  invariably  the  same 
Object  evinces  a  design  to  reduce  them  under  abso 
lute  Despotism,  it  is  their  right,  it  is  their  duty,  to 
throw  off  such  Government,  and  to  provide  new 
Guards  for  their  future  security. — Such  has  been  the 
patient  sufferance  of  these  Colonies ;  and  such  is  now 
the  necessity  which  constrains  them  to  [alter]  their 
former  Systems  of  Government.^The  history  of  the 
present  King  of  Great  Britain  is  a  history  of  [re 
peated]  injuries  and  usurpations,  all  [having]  in 
direct  object  the  establishment  of  an  absolute  Tyr 
anny  over  these  States.  To  prove  this,  let  Facts  be 
submitted  to  a  candid  world. — ^ 


266  JEFFERSON'S  DRAFT 

He  has  refused  his  assent  to  laws  the  most  whole 
some  and  necessary  for  the  public  good : 

He  has  forbidden  his  governors  to  pass  laws  of 
immediate  &  pressing  importance,  unless  suspended 
in  their  operation  till  his  assent  should  be  obtained, 
and  when  so  suspended,  he  has  utterly  neglected  to 
attend  to  them. 

He  has  refused  to  pass  other  laws  for  the  accom 
modation  of  large  districts  of  people  unless  those 
people  would  relinquish  the  right  of  representation 
in  the  legislature,  a  right,  inestimable  to  them,  & 
formidable  to  tyrants  only : 

He  has  called  together  legislative  bodies  at  places 
unusual,  uncomfortable  &  distant  from  the  de 
pository  of  their  public  records,  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  fatiguing  them  into  compliance  with  his  meas 
ures. 

He  has  dissolved  Representative  houses  repeatedly 
&  continually  for  opposing  with  manly  firmness  his 
invasions  on  the  rights  of  the  people: 

He  has  refused  for  a  long  time  after  such  Dissolu 
tions1  to  cause  others  to  be  elected  whereby  the  legis 
lative  powers  incapable  of  annihilation,  have  returned 
to  the  people  at  large  for  their  exercise,  the  state  re 
maining  in  the  mean  time  exposed  to  all  the  dangers 
of  invasion  from  without,  &  convulsions  within : 

1  The  words  "  after  such  Dissolutions  "  were  suggested  by 
Adams. 


ENGROSSED   COPY  267 

He  has  refused  his  Assent  to  Laws,  the  most 
wholesome  and  necessary  for  the  public  good. — 

He  has  forbidden  his  Governors  to  pass  Laws  of 
immediate  and  pressing  importance,  unless  suspended 
in  their  operation  till  his  Assent  should  be  obtained ; 
and  when  so  suspended,  he  has  utterly  neglected 
to  attend  to  them. — 

He  has  refused  pass  other  Laws  for  the  accom 
modation  of  large  districts  of  people,  unless  those 
people  would  relinquish  the  right  of  Representation 
in  the  legislature,  a  right  inestimable  to  them  and 
formidable  to  tyrants  only. — 

He  has  called  together  legislative  bodies  at  places 
unusual,  uncomfortable,  and  distant  from  the  de 
pository  of  their  public  Records,  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  fatiguing  them  into  compliance  with  his  meas 
ures. — 

He  has  dissolved  Representative  Houses  re 
peatedly,  for  opposing  with  manly  firmness  his  in 
vasions  on  the  rights  of  the  people. — 

He  has  refused  for  a  long  time,  after  such  dissolu 
tions,  to  cause  others  to  be  elected;  whereby  the 
Legislative  powers,  incapable  of  Annihilation,  have 
returned  to  the  People  at  large  for  their  exercise ;  the 
State  remaining  in  the  mean  time  exposed  to  all  the 
dangers  of  invasion  from  without,  and  convulsions 
within. — 


268  JEFFERSON'S  DRAFT 

He  has  endeavored  to  prevent  the  population  of 
these  states,  for  that  purpose  obstructing  the  laws 
for  naturalization  of  foreigners,  refusing  to  pass 
others  to  encourage  their  migrations  hither,  & 
raising  the  conditions  of  new  appropriations  of 
lands. 

He  has  suffered  the  administration  of  justice 
totally  to  cease  in  some  of  these  states,  refusing  his 
assent  to  laws  for  establishing  judiciary  powers : 

He  has  made  our  judges  dependant  on  his  will 
alone,  for  the  tenure  of  their  offices  and  the  amount 
&  payment1  of  their  salaries : 

He  has  erected  a  multitude  of  new  offices  by  a 
self-assumed  power,  &  sent  hither  swarms  of  officers 
to  harrass  our  people  &  eat  out  their  substance : 

He  has  kept  among  us  in  times  of  peace  standing 
armies  &  ships  of  war  without  the  consent  of  our 
legislatures. 

He  has  affected  to  render  the  military,  independ 
ent  of  &  superior  to  the  civil  power : 

He  has  combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a 
jurisdiction  foreign  to  our  constitutions  and  un 
acknowledged  by  our  laws ;  giving  his  assent  to  their 
acts  of  pretended  legislation,  for  quartering  large 
bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us;  for  protecting 
them  by  a  mock-trial  from  punishment  for  any  mur 
ders  which  they  should  commit  on  the  inhabitants  of 

1  The  words  "  and  payment "  were  suggested  by   Franklin. 


ENGROSSED   COPY  269 

He  has  endeavoured  to  prevent  the  population  of 
these  States ;  for  that  purpose  obstructing  the  Laws 
for  Naturalization  of  Foreigners;  refusing  to  pass 
others  to  encourage  their  migrations  hither,  and 
raising  the  conditions  of  new  Appropriations  of 
Lands.— 

He  has  [obstructed  the  Administration  of  Justice, 
by]  refusing  his  Assent  to  Laws  for  establishing 
Judiciary  powers. — 

He  has  made  Judges  dependent  on  his  Will  alone, 
for  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  and  the  amount  and 
payment  of  their  salaries. — 

He  has  erected  a  multitude  of  New  Offices,  and 
sent  hither  swarms  of  Officers  to  harrass  our  people, 
and  eat  out  their  substance. — 

He  has  kept  among  us,  in  times  of  peace,  Standing 
Armies  without  the  Consent  of  our  legislatures. — 

He  has  affected  to  render  the  Military  independ 
ent  of  and  superior  to  the  Civil  power. — 

He  has  combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a 
jurisdiction  foreign  to  our  constitution,  and  un 
acknowledged  by  our  laws ;  giving  his  Assent  to  their 
Acts  of  pretended  Legislation: — For  quartering 
large  bodies  of  armed  troops  among  us;  For  pro 
tecting  them,  by  a  mock  Trial,  from  punishment  for 
any  Murders  which  they  should  commit  on  the  In- 


2/0  JEFFERSON  S   DRAFT 

these  states ;  for  cutting  off  our  trade  with  all  parts 
of  the  world ;  for  imposing  taxes  on  us  without  our 
consent ;  for  depriving  us  of  the  benefits  of  trial  by 
jury,  for  transporting  us  beyond  seas  to  be  tried  for 
pretended  offences ;  for  abolishing  the  free  system  of 
English  laws  in  a  neighboring  province,  establishing 
therein  an  arbitrary  government,  and  enlarging  its 
bounds  so  as  to  render  it  at  once  an  example  &  fit 
instrument  for  introducing  the  same  absolute  rule 
into  these  colonies;  for  taking  away  our  charters, 
abolishing  our  most  valuable  Laws,1  and  altering 
fundamentally  the  forms  of  our  governments;  for 
suspending  our  own  legislatures  &  declaring  them 
selves  invested  with  power  to  legislate  for  us  in  all 
cases  whatsoever : 

He  has  abdicated  government  here,  withdrawing 
his  governors,  &  declaring  us  out  of  his  allegiance  & 
protection. 

He  has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  coasts, 
burnt  our  towns  &  destroyed  the  lives  of  our 
people : 

He  is  at  this  time  transporting  large  armies  of 
Scotch  and  other  foreign  mercenaries  to  compleat 
the  works  of  death  desolation  &  tyranny  already 
begun  with  circumstances  of  cruelty  and  perfidy  un 
worthy  the  head  of  a  civilized  nation. 

1  The  words  "  abolishing  our  most  valuable  Laws "  were 
added  by  Franklin. 


ENGROSSED   COPY  2/1 

habitants  of  these  States  : — For  cutting  off  our  Trade 
with  all  parts  of  the  world  : — For  imposing  Taxes  on 
us  without  our  Consent: — For  depriving  us  [in 
many  cases] ,  of  the  benefits  of  Trial  by  Jury : — For 
transporting  us  beyond  Seas  to  be  tried  for  pre 
tended  offences  : — For  abolishing  the  free  System  of 
English  Laws  in  a  neighboring  Province,  establishing 
therein  an  Arbitrary  government,  and  enlarging  its 
Boundaries  so  as  to  render  it  at  once  an  example  and 
fit  instrument  for  introducing  the  same  absolute  rule 
into  these  Colonies : — For  taking  away  our  Charters, 
abolishing  our  most  valuable  Laws,  and  altering 
fundamentally  the  Forms  of  our  Governments : — 
For  suspending  our  own  Legislatures,  and  declaring 
themselves  invested  with  power  to  legislate  for  us  in 
all  cases  whatsoever. — 

He  has  abdicated  Government  here,  [by]  declar 
ing  us  out  of  his  Protection  [and  waging  War 
against  us] . — 

He  has  plundered  our  seas,  ravaged  our  Coasts, 
burnt  our  towns,  and  destroyed  the  Lives  of  our 
people. — 

He  is  at  this  time  transporting  large  Armies  of 
foreign  Mercenaries  to  compleat  the  works  of  death,  Is 
desolation  and  tyranny,  already  begun  with  circum 
stances  of  Cruelty  &  perfidy  [scarcely  paralleled  in 
the  most  barbarous  ages,  and  totally]  unworthy  the 
Head  of  a  civilized  nation. 


272  JEFFERSON'S  DRAFT 


He  has  endeavored  to  bring  on  the  inhabitants  of 
our  frontiers  the  merciless  Indian  savages,  whose 
known  rule  of  warfare  is  an  undistinguished  destruc 
tion  of  all  ages,  sexes,  &  conditions  of  existence. 

He  has  incited  treasonable  insurrections  of  our  fel 
low-citizens  with  the  allurements  of  forfeiture  &  con 
fiscation  of  property. 

He  has  constrained  others  taken  captives  on  the 
high  seas,  to  bear  arms  against  their  country,  to  be 
come  the  executioners  of  their  friends  &  brethren,  or 
to  fall  themselves  by  their  hand : 

He  has  waged  cruel  war  against  human  nature 
itself,  violating  it's  most  sacred  rights  of  life  & 
liberty  in  the  persons  of  a  distant  people  who  never 
offended  him,  captivating  &  carrying  them  into 
slavery  in  another  hemisphere,  or  to  incur  miserable 
death  in  their  transportation  thither.  This  piratical 
warfare,  the  opprobrium  of  infidel  powers,  is  the 
warfare  of  the  Christian  king  of  Great  Britain  deter 
mined  to  keep  open  a  market  where  MEN  should 
be  bought  and  sold.  He  has  prostituted  his  negative 
for  suppressing  every  legislative  attempt  to  prohibit 
or  restrain  this  execrable  commerce.  And  that  this 


ENGROSSED   COPY  2/3 

He  has  constrained  [our  fellow  Citizens]  taken 
Captive  on  the  high  Seas  to  bear  Arms  against  their 
Country,  to  become  the  executioners  of  their  friends 
and  Brethren,  or  fall  themselves  by  their  Hands. — 

He  has  [excited  domestic  insurrections  amongst 
us,  and  has]  endeavoured  to  bring  on  the  inhabitants 
of  our  frontiers,  the  merciless  Indian  Savages,  whose 
known  rule  of  warfare,  is  an  undistinguished  de 
struction  of  all  ages,  sexes  and  conditions. 


18 


2/4  JEFFERSON  S   DRAFT 

assemblage  of  horrors  might  want  no  fact  of  distin 
guished  die,  he  is  now  exciting  these  very  people  to 
rise  in  arms  among  us,  and  to  purchase  that  liberty 
of  which  he  has  deprived  them,  by  murdering  the 
people  upon  whom  he  also  obtruded  them;  thus  pay 
ing  off  former  crimes  committed  against  the  liberties 
of  our  people,  with  crimes  which  he  urges  them  to 
commit  against  the  lives  of  another. 

In  every  stage  of  these  oppressions  "  we  have 
petitioned  for  redress  in  the  most  humble  terms," 
our  repeated  petitions  have  been  answered  only1  by 
repeated  injuries.  "  A  prince  whose  character  is 
thus  marked  by  every  act  which  may  define  a  tyrant," 
is  unfit  to  be  the  ruler  of  a  people  who  mean  to  be 
free.  "Future  ages  will  scarce  believe  that  the  hardi 
ness  of  one  man  adventured  within  the  short  compass 
of  twelve  years  only  "  to  build  a  foundation  so  broad 
&  undisguised,  for  tyranny  over  a  people  fostered 
and  fixed  in  principles  of  freedom. 

Nor  have  we  been  wanting  in  attentions  to  our 
British  brethren.  We  have  warned  them  from  time 
to  time  of  attempts  by  their  legislature  to  extend  a 
jurisdiction  over  these  our  states.  We  have  re 
minded  them  of  the  circumstances  of  our  emigration 
&  settlement  here,  no  one  of  which  could  warrant  so 
strange  a  pretension:  that  these  were  effected  at  the 
cxpence  of  our  own  blood  &  treasure,  unassisted  by 
the  wealth  or  the  strength  of  Great  Britain:  that  in 

1 "  Only  "  added  by  Franklin. 


ENGROSSED   COPY  2/5 


In  every  stage  of  these  Oppressions  We  have 
Petitioned  for  Redress  in  the  most  humble  terms : 
Our  repeated  Petitions  have  been  answered  only  by 
repeated  injury.  A  Prince,  whose  character  is  thus 
marked  by  every  act  which  may  define  a  Tyrant,  is 
unfit  to  be  the  ruler  of  a  [free]  people. 


Nor  have  We  been  wanting  in  attentions  to  our 
British  brethren.  We  have  warned  them  from  time 
to  time  of  attempts  by  their  legislature  to  extend  [an 
unwarrantable]  jurisdiction  over  [us].  We  have 
reminded  them  of  the  circumstances  of  our  emigra 
tion  and  settlement  here.  We  [have]  appealed  to 
their  native  justice  and  magnanimity,  and  [we  have 
conjured  them  by]  the  ties  of  our  common  kindred 
to  disavow  these  usurpations,  which,  [would  in- 


276  JEFFERSON'S  DRAFT 

constituting  indeed  our  several  forms  of  government, 
we  had  adopted  one  common  king,  thereby  laying  a 
foundation  for  perpetual  league  and  amity  with 
them:  but  that  submission  to  their  parliament  was 
no  part  of  our  constitution,  nor  ever  in  idea  of  his 
tory  may  be  credited;  and  we  appealed  to  their  native 
justice  &  magnanimity,  as  well  as  to  the  ties  of  our 
common  kindred  to  disavow  these  usurpations  which 
were  likely  to  interrupt  our  connection  &  correspond 
ence.  They  too  have  been  deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice 
and  consanguinity,  &  zvhen  occasions  have  been 
given  them,  by  the  regular  course  of  their  laws,  of 
removing  from  their  councils  the  disturbers  of  our 
harmony,  they  have  by  their  free  election  re-estab 
lished  them  in  power.  At  this  very  time  too  they  are 
permitting  their  chief  magistrate  to  send  over  not 
only  soldiers  of  our  common  blood,  but  Scotch  & 
foreign  mercenaries  to  invade  &  destroy  us1  these 
facts  have  given  the  last  stab  to  agonising  affection, 
and  manly  spirit  bids  us  to  renounce  for  ever  these 
unfeeling  brethren.  We  must  endeavor  to  forget 
our  former  love  for  them,  and  to  hold  them  as  we 
hold  the  rest  of  mankind,  enemies  in  war,  in  peace 
friends.  We  might  have  been  a  free  &  a  great 
people  together;  but  a  communication  of  grandeur 
&  of  freedom  it  seems  is  below  their  dignity.  Be  it 
so  since  they  will  have  it.  The  road  to  happiness  &  to 
glory  is  open  to  us  too,  we  will  climb  it  apart  from 

* "  And  destroy  us  "  added  by  Franklin. 


ENGROSSED   COPY 

evitably]  interrupt  our  connections  and  correspond 
ence 


They  too  have  been  deaf  to  the  voice  of  justice  and 
of  consanguinity. 


[We  must,  therefore]  acquiesce  in  the  necessity, 
which  denounces  our  Separation,  and  hold  them,  as 
we  held  the  rest  of  mankind,  Enemies  in  War,  in 
Peace  Friends. — 


278  JEFFERSON'S  DRAFT 

them,  and  acquiesce  in  the  necessity  which  denounces 
our  eternal  separation. 

We  therefore  the  representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  General  Congress  assembled 
do  in  the  name  &  by  authority  of  the  good  people  of 
these  states  reject  and  renounce  all  allegiance  &  sub 
jection  to  the  kings  of  Great  Britain  &  all  others 
who  may  hereafter  claim  by,  through,  or  under  them; 
we  utterly  dissolve  all  political  connection  which 
may  heretofore  have  subsisted  betzveen  us  &  the 
people  or  parliament  of  Great  Britain;  and  finally  we 
do  assert  and  declare  these  colonies  to  be  free  and 
independant  states  and  that  as  free  &  independant 
states  they  have  full  power  to  levy  war  conclude 
peace,  contract  alliances,  establish  commerce,  &  to  do 
all  other  acts  and  things  which  independant  states 
may  of  right  do.  And  for  the  support  of  this  decla 
ration  we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  lives, 
our  fortunes,  &  our  sacred  honour. 


ENGROSSED   COPY  2/9 


We,  therefore  the  Representatives  of  the  united 
States  of  America,  in  General  Congress,  Assembled, 
[appealing  to  the  Supreme  Judge  of  the  world  for 
the  rectitude  of  our  intentions],  do,  in  the  Name, 
and  by  Authority  of  the  good  People  of  these  Col 
onies,  [solemnly  publish  and  declare,  That  these 
United  Colonies  are,  and  of  Right  ought  to  be  Free 
and  Independent  States;  that  they  are  Absolved 
from  all  Allegiance  to  the  British  Crown,  and  that  all 
political  connection  between  them  and  the  State  of 
Great  Britain,  is  and  ought  to  be  totally  dissolved]  ; 
and  that  as  Free  and  Independent  States,  they  have 
full  Power  to  levy  War,  conclude  Peace,  contract 
Alliances,  establish  Commerce,  and  to  do  all  other 
Acts  and  Things  which  Independent  States  may  of 
right  do. — 

And  for  the  support  of  this  Declaration,  [with  a 
firm  reliance  on  the  protection  of  divine  Providence] , 
we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our  Lives,  our  For 
tunes  and  our  sacred  Honor. 


INDEX 


ACT  of  settlement  (1689), 
255- 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  Life 
and  tvorks  of  John  Adams, 
2. 

Adams,  John,  20,  23,  24,  60, 
79,  90,  113,  114,  141,  142, 
173;  Life  of,  by  C.  F. 
Adams,  2  ;  on  rights  of  the 
colonies,  14;  Diary,  20; 
compromise  proposition  of, 
24 ;  on  independence,  28, 
29 ;  in  Congress,  58,  84 ;  on 
the  expected  commissioners 
of  the  King,  65  ;  on  form 
ing  new  governments,  80 ; 
endeavors  to  force  union, 
91  ;  on  renouncing  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  crown,  95  ;  Let 
ters  to  his  wife,  95 ;  sec 
onds  motion  for  indepen 
dence,  102;  debate  of,  on 
adoption  of  resolutions  of 
independence,  104-106; 
member  of  committee  to 
prepare  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  107;  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  sub 
mitted  to,  121  ;  on  resolu 
tions  for  independence, 
123 ;  speech  for  indepen 
dence,  124;  criticises  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
J56,  157;  reply  of  Jefferson 
to,  157-159;  on  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
182;  on  government,  195; 
Works,  23,  24,  40,  41,  43, 
90,  91,  102,  113,  114,  122, 
124,  141,  173. 


Adams,  Samuel,  58,  79,  142, 
176;  on  rights  of  the  col 
onies,  14;  on  independence, 
28,  29,  59 ;  in  Congress, 
84 ;  on  the  signing  of  the 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  141  ;  manuscript 
letter  of,  in  Lenox  library, 
141  ;  on  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  182;  on  gov 
ernment,  195  ;  on  royal  in 
structions  issued  to  gov 
ernors,  222. 

Address,  proposed,  on  inde 
pendence,  175,  176. 

Address  of  Philadelphia  mer 
chants,  1768,  218. 

Address  to  the  colonies,  1774, 
164,  235. 

Address  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Great  Britain,  1775,  165. 

Address  to  the  people  of 
Great  Britain,  1774,  162, 
164. 

Address  to  the  people  of 
Quebec,  27. 

Admiralty  courts,  248,  249 ; 
extension  of  jurisdiction 
of,  234,  235,  237. 

Agents,  colonial,  in  London, 
211. 

Aitken,  Robert,  proceedings 
of  Congress  for  1776  print 
ed  by,  135. 

Alexander,  James,  member  of 
committee  to  prepare  ad 
dress  against  independence, 
56. 

Aliens,  naturalization  of,  228. 


281 


282 


INDEX 


Almon,  John,  Prior  docu 
ments,  217,  218. 

Alsop,  John,  142,  144. 

American  Revolution,  might 
have  been  postponed  many 
years,  4 ;  influence  of  Con 
gress  upon,  32,  33  ;  prepara 
tion  for,  69 ;  political  phi 
losophy  of,  184,  198-200; 
original  causes  that  led  to 
the,  212.  See  also  War  of 
Independence. 

Answer  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  5th  ed.,  Lon 
don,  1776,  219,  241. 

Army,  standing,  in  the  col 
onies,  26,  237. 

Army,  continental,  on  the 
formation  of  a,  34 ;  in 
crease  of,  6 1  ;  distribution 
throughout  colonies  of  the, 
82. 

Assemblies,  colonial,  12;  ad 
ministrative  power  of,  15  ; 
the  proroguing  of,  16; 
members  of  Congress  elect 
ed  by,  77 ;  on  representa 
tion  of  newly-settled  dis 
tricts  in  the,  222,  223,  224 ; 
removal  and  dissolution  of, 
225,  226. 

Association  of  1774,  Articles 
of,  22,  23,  68  ;  non-exporta 
tion  part  of,  goes  into  ef 
fect,  40 ;  reenactment  of 
parts  of,  73  ;  date  of  sign 
ing,  134;  importation  of 
slaves  prohibited  by,  216. 

Austin,  James  T.,  Gerry,  90. 

BALTIMORE  Committee,  places 
Eden's  correspondence  be 
fore  Congress,  87 ;  de 
nounced  by  Maryland 
Council  of  Safety,  88. 


Bancroft,  George,  124;  His 
tory  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  67,  237. 

Bartlett,  Josiah,  142;  on  the 
Declaration  of  indepen 
dence,  183. 

Bills  of  credit,  issuance  of, 
48 ;  British  policy  against 
issuance  of,  217. 

Bland,  Richard,  on  rights  of 
the  colonies,  14;  on  gov 
ernment,  195. 

Board  of  trade  and  foreign 
plantations,  established  as 
Council  for  Trade  (1660), 
208;  reorganized  (1765), 
209 ;  permanently  estab 
lished  (1696),  209;  pre 
rogatives  of,  curtailed 
(1766),  210;  method  of 
procedure  of,  during  revolu 
tionary  agitation,  210,  211. 

Board  of  trade  journals,  208, 
214,  220. 

Borgeaud,  Charles,  Rise  of 
modern  democracy  in  Old 
and  New  England,  184. 

Boston,  proclamation  prohib 
iting  people  from  leaving 
town  of,  47 ;  evacuation  of, 
73  ;  town  meeting  of,  1768, 
226. 

"Boston  Massacre"  (1770),  4, 
238,  241. 

Boston  Port  Act,  243,  251  ; 
effect  of,  19. 

"  Boston  tea  party,"  248. 

Boucher,  Jonathan,  on  rights 
of  kings  and  governments, 
14. 

Bradford,  William,  238. 

Buchanan,  Thomas  McKean, 
McKean  family,  128,  146. 

Burke,  Edmund,  211;  on 
liberty,  12. 


INDEX 


Braxton,  Carter,  143. 
Bryce,  James,  Studies  in  his 
tory  and  jurisprudence,  186. 

CAMPBELL,  Governor  William 
abdicates  government,  255. 

Canada,  invitation  to  unite 
with  colonies,  83. 

Carleton,  Sir  Guy,  engages 
Indians  as  allies,  257. 

Carroll,  Charles,  influence 
upon  Maryland  politics  of, 
113  ;  on  signing  of  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  by, 
145. 

Chamberlain,  Mellen,  Authen 
tication  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  133. 

Charles   I,   208. 

Charles  II,  208,  209,  243. 

Charleston,    burning   of,    255. 

Charlestown,  burning  of,  255. 

Chase,  Samuel,  unofficially 
supports  independence,  58  ; 
in  Congress,  84;  influence 
of,  upon  Maryland  politics, 
112-114;  on  signing  of 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  141,  142,  145, 
149. 

Choate,  Rufus,  on  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
159,  160. 

Clark,  Abraham,   143. 

Clinton,  George,   142,  144. 

Clymer,  George,  on  signing 
of  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  144,  149. 

Collins,  Edward  D.,  on  com 
mittees  of  correspondence, 
17- 

Colonies,  acts  of  Parliament 
affecting  commerce  and  in 
dustry  of,  i,  2  ;  beginning 
of  controversy  between 


Parliament  and,  6 ;  Parlia 
mentary  control  gradually 
renounced  by,  7 ;  removal 
of  economic  burdens  of,  9  ; 
constant  development  along 
democratic  lines  of,  1 1  ; 
administrative  powers  of, 
i i ;  change  in  the  nature 
of  the  dispute  of,  12; 
rights  of,  13,  14,  15,  23, 
!79>  *99>  200;  administra 
tive  development  of,  15; 
formation  of  parties  in, 
31  ;  administrative  bodies 
of,  controlled  by  Congress, 
33 ;  decrease  of  conserva 
tives  in,  42 ;  proclamation 
by  Congress  in  name  of 
United,  47 ;  conservative 
spirit  in,  50 ;  declared  by 
the  King  to  be  in  rebellion, 
52 ;  commercial  relations 
of,  regulated  by  Congress, 
68 ;  foreign  relations  of, 
75  ;  political  revolutions  in, 
79,  80 ;  resolutions  to  de 
clare  independence  of,  100; 
theories  of,  on  government, 
163  ;  first  official  expression 
of  contentions  of,  164,  165  ; 
denial  of  the  right  of  Par 
liament  to  control  the,  162- 
167  ;  protests  by,  of  loyalty 
to  the  King,  162,  164,  166  ; 
answer  of,  to  proclamation 
of  the  King,  167,  168;  re 
nounce  allegiance  to  the 
crown,  169;  increase  of 
authority  of  the  legislature 
in,  194,  204,  205 ;  contro 
versy  between  the  King 
and  the,  194 ;  authority  of 
the  crown  over,  195 ;  po 
litical  conceptions  of  lead 
ers  of  thought  of,  204 ; 


284 


INDEX 


official  relations  of  Great 
Britain  with,  208-211;  re 
strictions  on  commerce  of, 
212 ;  constitutional  relations 
to  the  crown  of,  214;  in 
crease  of  royal  instructions 
issued  to  the  governors  of, 
221,  222;  economic  griev 
ances  of,  242,  243  ;  denial 
by,  on  constitutional  right 
of  Great  Britain  to  enact 
colonial  legislation,  257. 
Rights  of,  See  also  Dec 
laration  of  rights. 

Colonies,  laws  of,  British 
supervision  over,  213,  214; 
disallowance  by  the  King 
of,  214-219;  on  restricting 
slave  trade,  215;  on  re 
stricting  entrance  of  con 
victs,  215,  216;  on  issuing 
bills  of  credit,  217;  first  in 
timation  in  1740  of  closer 
British  control  over,  219 ; 
royal  instructions  in  1752 
requiring  revision  of,  219; 
on  suppression  of  lotteries, 
219,  220;  British  neglect 
of,  while  suspended  in  ac 
tion  awaiting  royal  assent, 
220. 

Colville,  Admiral,  placed  at 
head  of  revenue  service, 
237- 

Commissioners  of  customs  in 
America,  236. 

Commissioners  of  the  King, 
prospective,  63-66. 

Committee  of  secret  corre 
spondence,  personnel  of,  75. 

Committee  to  prepare  a  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
1 06,  107 ;  lays  document 
before  Congress,  121. 


Committees  of  correspon 
dence,  ramifications  of,  4 ; 
origin  of,  16,  17;  Collins 
on,  17;  Congress  and  the, 
17,  18;  violation  of  Asso 
ciation  to  be  controlled  by, 
23- 

Concord,  effect  of  hostilities 
at,  30. 

Confederation,  plan  of  a,  104; 
committee  to  draft  Articles 
of,  1 01  ;  importance  of, 
125 ;  date  of  signing  Ar 
ticles  of,  134. 

Congress  of  1765,  revolu 
tionary  memorials  of,  3 ; 
delegates  to,  elected  by  the 
assemblies,  5 ;  proves  effi 
cacy  of  united  action,  5 ; 
memorial  to  Lords  and 
Commons  and  petition  to 
the  King,  6 ;  state  papers 
of,  7 ;  moderation  of  the 
acts  of,  8. 

Congress  of  1774,  five  dele 
gations  to,  elected  by  as 
semblies,  5  ;  Committees  of 
correspondence  and,  17,  18; 
credentials  of  delegates  to, 
19,  20  ;  committed  to  non 
importation  and  non-ex 
portation  agreements,  20 ; 
Suffolk  County  resolves  en 
dorsed  by,  21  ;  on  legisla 
tion  without  representation, 
22 ;  letter  of,  to  Gen.  Gage, 
22 ;  Declaration  of  rights 
adopted  by,  23,  24  ;  Address 
to  the  people  of  Great 
Britain  by,  26 ;  independent 
government  not  demanded 
by,  28 ;  Address  to  the 
people  of  the  colonies  and 
Petition  to  the  King  by, 
27 ;  dissolved,  29 ;  on  the 


INDEX 


285 


slave  trade,  216;  election 
of  delegates  to,  226. 
Congress  of  1775-76,  con 
vened,  30 ;  responsibilities 
of,  30 ;  assumes  direction 
of  colonial  affairs,  31  ; 
growth  of  power  and  au 
thority  of,  32,  33 ;  support 
of,  by  the  colonies,  33  ;  ef 
fect  of  the  enlargement  of 
the  powers  of,  35 ;  em 
phasis  of  British  aggres 
sion  the  continual  policy 
of,  36,  41  ;  unconscious 
working  of,  toward  inde 
pendence,  37,  38 ;  second 
Petition  to  the  King  by, 
38;  rejects  Lord  North's 
plan  of  conciliation,  39 ; 
adjournment  and  recon 
vening  of,  40  ;  reply  of,  to 
proclamation  of  King  de 
claring  rebellion,  41  ;  effect 
of  proclamation  upon,  42, 
43  ;  on  sending  a  new  peti 
tion,  46 ;  proclamation  of 
Dec.  6,  47  ;  sovereign  policy 
of,  48 ;  strength  of  con 
servative  in,  50 ;  continued 
increase  in  power  and  au 
thority  of,  51  ;  increasing 
strength  of  radical  party  in, 
59  ;  influence  upon,  of  the 
engaging  of  foreign  mer 
cenaries,  67 ;  regulates  com 
mercial  relations  of  the 
colonies,  68-70,  74 ;  in 
creased  power  of,  69 ;  on 
the  question  of  open  ports, 
71  ;  opens  ports,  73 ;  plans 
to  secure  supplies  of  war, 
74,  75 ;  attributes  of,  77 ; 
instructions  to  delegates  of, 
77 ;  casts  influence  on  side 
of  democracy,  80 ;  reaction 


in,  8 1  ;  revolutionary  char 
acter  of,  81,  82  ;  measures 
resorted  to  by,  82  ;  projects 
itself  into  Pennsylvania 
politics,  82,  83  ;  antagon 
ism  of  Pennsylvania  As 
sembly  to,  83,  85,  86;  ad 
vocates  of  independence  in, 
84 ;  takes  measures  to  show 
sympathy  with  democracy 
of  Pennsylvania,  86  ;  Mary 
land  feels  the  hand  of,  87 ; 
arrest  of  Gov.  Eden  or 
dered  by,  87 ;  Maryland 
Council  of  Safety  aroused 
to  opposition  to,  88 ;  at 
tempts  to  overcome  inertia 
of  conservative  colonies, 
89  ;  recommends  local  gov 
ernments,  91,  92,  93,  94; 
extension  of  jurisdiction 
of,  95  J  ignores  Maryland's 
reactionary  resolutions,  96 ; 
decides  to  call  for  more 
troops,  97,  98;  Virginia 
resolutions  to  declare  inde 
pendence  submitted  to,  100, 
101  ;  debate  on  indepen 
dence  postponed  one  day, 
102;  debates  in,  on  inde 
pendence,  103-106;  unim 
portant  position  of  New 
York  delegation  in,  116; 
New  York  delegates  to, 
given  no  instructions  on 
independence,  118-119,  126, 
143,  144;  on  resolutions 
for  independence,  123-125  ; 
vote  of,  on  resolutions, 
125-129;  Declaration  of 
Independence  adopted  by, 
133 ;  state  documents  is 
sued  by,  133,  134;  mem 
bers  of,  who  voted  for 


286 


INDEX 


Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence,  142,  143. 

Congress,  Journal  of.  See 
Journal  of  Congress. 

Connecticut,  radical  dele 
gates  of,  control  vote  of 
colony,  58,  59 ;  on  inde 
pendence,  114. 

Continental  army.  See  Army, 
continental. 

Continental  Congress.  See 
Congress  of  1774;  Con 
gress  of  1775-76. 

Convicts,  opposition  of  col 
onies  to  introduction  of, 
215,  216. 

Conway,  Moncure  Daniel, 
Life  of  Paine,  55. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  208,  243 ; 
popular  uprisings  under,  n. 

Gushing,  Thomas,  letter  of, 
67. 

DEANE,  Silas,  contract  of 
Congress  with,  74,  75 ; 
Deane  papers,  74,  75 ;  in 
Congress,  84. 

Declaration  of  causes  of 
taking  up  arms,  July  1775, 
164. 

Declaration  of  Independence, 
committee  selected  to  pre 
pare  a,  106,  107;  draft  of, 
reported  to  Congress,  121  ; 
debate  on,  130;  omitted 
paragraphs  from  draft  of, 
131,  132;  adoption  by  Con 
gress  of,  133 ;  tradition 
about  date  of  signing  of, 
134,  135;  signing  and  pro 
mulgation  of,  134-139;  en 
grossment  of,  136,  137; 
first  official  reference  to 
signing  of,  137;  first  au 
thentic  copy  of,  with  names 


of  signers,  137;  manuscript 
of,  139  ;  authentication  of, 
138,  139;  date  of  signing 
of,  139-149 ;  signers  of, 
140-149  ;  on  the  engrossed 
copy  of,  148-149  ;  location 
of  signatures  on  the  en 
grossed  copy  of,  150;  ob 
servance  of  anniversary  of 
signing  of,  151  ;  lack  of 
comprehension  of,  152,  153, 
159 ;  on  the  criticism  of, 
J54>  155;  criticism  of,  by 
John  Adams,  156,  157;  in 
herent  vitality  of,  155,  156; 
rhetorical  side  of,  160  ;  de 
nies  the  right  of  Parlia 
ment  to  control  the  col 
onies,  163;  purpose  of,  172, 
174-177;  human  elen\  nts 
of,  178;  liferafy"~form" -jf, 
178—180;  contemporary 

opinion  of,  180-183  ;  the 
"  unalienable  rights "  of, 
1 88;  upon  French  origin 
of,  197;  political  philos 
ophy  of,  200-205  ;  on  the 
right  to  change  form  of 
government,  202,  203 ;  in 
fluence  of,  upon  American 
political  institutions,  203  ; 
on  British  supervision  over 
colonial  laws,  213,  222;  on 
representation,  222  ;  on  the 
removal  and  dissolution  of 
assemblies,  224,  225 ;  on 
naturalization,  immigration, 
and  lands,  226,  227 ;  on  in 
terference  with  the  admin 
istration  of  justice,  230 ; 
on  the  tenure  of  office  and 
payment  of  salaries  of  the 
judiciary,  233  ;  on  erection 
of  a  multitude  of  offices, 
236;  on  a  standing  army, 


INDEX 


287 


237 ;  on  rendering  the  mili 
tary  independent  of  civil 
power,  237 ;  on  quartering 
troops  upon  the  people, 
238 ;  holds  Parliament  as 
well  as  King  responsible 
for  abuses,  240 ;  on  protec 
tion  of  soldiers  from  pun 
ishment,  241  ;  on  economic 
grievances  of  the  colonies, 
242 ;  on  trade,  243 ;  on 
taxation,  244 ;  on  trial  by 
jury,  247 ;  on  transporta 
tion  of  offenders,  248 ;  on 
the  Quebec  Act  of  1774, 
250 ;  on  altering  estab 
lished  forms  of  govern 
ment,  251  ;  on  suspension 
of  legislatures,  253  ;  on  the 
waging  of  war  against  the 
colonies,  254,  256 ;  on  in 
citing  domestic  insurrec 
tion,  256.  See  also  Inde 
pendence. 

Declaration  of  rights  of  1774, 
13,  165,  199;  adopted  by 
Congress,  23 ;  on  the  au 
thority  of  Parliament  in 
the  colonies,  24,  25 ;  pre 
amble  of,  24,  25  ;  features 
of,  25-27;  cited,  162,  163; 
on  the  judiciary,  235. 

Declaratory  act,  3 ;  passed  by 
the  Rockingham  ministry, 
4 ;  passage  of,  8 ;  political 
controversy  carried  on  by 
means  of,  9,  10;  on  the 
legality  of  Parliamentary 
dominance  over  the  col 
onies,  1 5  ;  enforcement  of, 

254- 
DeLancey,  Governor  James, 

219. 
Delaware,  resolutions  of,  on 

non-importation  (1774),  19, 


20  ;  instructions  of,  against 
independence,  45,  77 ;  con 
test  for  independence  in, 
80 ;  McKean's  influence 
upon  the  politics  of,  no; 
loses  vote  on  resolutions 
for  independence,  125  ;  vote 
on  independence,  127,  128. 

Dickinson,  John,  78,  107,  109  ; 
on  the  rights  of  the  col 
onies,  14 ;  petition  to  the 
King  drafted  by,  27 ;  op 
poses  an  aggressive  policy, 
44 ;  chairman  of  committee 
to  confer  with  New  Jersey, 
46 ;  member  of  committee 
to  prepare  address  against 
independence,  56  ;  on  inde 
pendence,  76,  79,  1 02,  103, 
104,  128,  129;  prime  mover 
in  reaction,  81  ;  opposes 
plan  of  confederation,  104; 
against  resolutions  for  in 
dependence,  123 ;  speech 
against  independence,  124, 
125;  vindication  of,  125; 
on  the  signing  of  the  Dec- 
claration  of  Independence 
by,  140;  on  government, 
195 ;  on  introduction  of 
convicts  into  the  colonies, 
216,  217;  Life  and  writings 
of,  217. 

Documents  relating  to  the 
colonial  history  of  New 
York,  208,  218,  219,  223, 
228. 

Donne,  Correspondence  of 
George  III  with  Lord 
North,  171. 

Duane,  James,  member  of 
committee  to  prepare  ad 
dress  against  independence, 
56 ;  protests  against  local 
governments,  94. 


288 


INDEX 


Dubois,  William  E.  B.,  Sup 
pression  of  the  slave  trade, 
215. 

Dulany,  Daniel,  on  rights  of 
the  colonies,  14;  on  gov 
ernment,  195. 

Dunlap,  John,  printer  of  the 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence,  139. 

Dunmore,  Governor,  Norfolk 
destroyed  by,  52 ;  abdicates 
government,  255  ;  threatens 
to  arm  Negroes  and  In 
dians,  256. 

EDEN,  Robert,  influence  of, 
upon  Maryland  politics,  87- 
89 ;  arrest  of,  ordered  by 
Congress,  87 ;  banishment 
of,  by  Maryland  Council  of 
safety,  88. 

Ellery,  William,  142 ;  enters 
Congress,  92. 

Equality,    political,    201,    202. 

FALMOUTH,  burning  of,  255. 

Filmer,  Sir  Robert,  187 ; 
Patriarcha,  187. 

Flick,  Alexander  C,  Loyal- 
ism  in  New  York,  116. 

Floyd,  William,  142. 

Ford,  Jefferson,   164,   173. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  78,  129, 
143,  144,  159,  ^211,  227; 
view  of,  concerning  separa 
tion  of  colonies,  3  ;  respon 
sibility  of,  for  Paine's 
Common  Sense,  54 ;  allies 
himself  with  radicals  of 
Pennsylvania,  56 ;  unoffi 
cially  supports  indepen 
dence,  58  ;  member  of  Com 
mittee  of  secret  correspon 
dence,  75  ;  in  Congress,  84  ; 
plan  of,  for  a  confedera 


tion,  104;  member  of  com 
mittee  to  prepare  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  107; 
absent  from  Congress  in 
June,  no;  Declaration  of 
Independence  submitted  to, 
121  ;  on  introduction  of 
convicts  into  the  colonies, 
216;  on  the  taxation  of 
tea,  248. 

Franklin,  William,  relations 
of,  with  the  Provincial  con 
gress  of  New  Jersey,  in  ; 
banishment  of,  112. 

Frothingham,  Richard,  Rise 
of  the  Republic,  no. 

GADSDEN,  Christopher,  in  Con 
gress,  84. 

Gage,  Thomas,  letter  of  Con 
gress  to,  22 ;  as  governor 
of  Massachusetts  and  com- 
mander-in-chief  of  the 
army,  238,  239;  engages 
Indians  as  allies,  257. 

Gaspee,  the  revenue  vessel, 
burned,  249. 

Gates,  General,  called  to 
councils  of  Congress,  96. 

George  III,  193 ;  autocratic 
direction  of  England's  af 
fairs  by,  10,  ii  ;  proclama 
tion  of,  declaring  rebellion 
in  the  colonies,  41,  255  ; 
speech  of,  on  rebellion  of 
the  colonies,  51,  52;  an 
swer  of,  to  the  address  and 
petition  of  the  Lord  Mayor 
and  aldermen  of  London, 
101  ;  denounced  by  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
132,  155;  proclamation  of, 
167 ;  answer  of  colonies  to 
the  proclamation,  167,  168  ; 
tyranny  of,  170,  171 ;  con- 


INDEX 


289 


troversy  between  the  col 
onies  and,  194. 

Georgia,  not  represented  at 
Stamp  act  congress,  5  ;  nor 
Congress  of  1774,  5;  dele 
gates  absent  from  Congress 
in  1776,  50;  instructions  to 
delegates  of,  96 ;  favors 
adoption  of  the  resolutions 
for  independence,  104,  105  ; 
votes  for  resolutions  of  in 
dependence,  126;  on  sla 
very,  130;  dissolution  of 
Assembly  of,  225. 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  147;  in  Con 
gress,  58,  84 ;  on  the  sign 
ing  of  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  by,  141,  142, 

147,    149. 

"  Glass,  lead  and  paint  act," 
234,  247,  248. 

Goddard,  Mary  Katharine, 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  printed  by,  137. 

Government,  theory  of  the 
origin  of,  13,  14;  theory  of 
colonists  on,  163 ;  con 
tractual  theories  of  origin 
of,  185,  186;  Locke  on, 
1 86,  193  ;  legislative,  189- 
191  ;  relations  of  the  legis 
lative  and  the  executive  to 
the  people,  191  ;  dissolution 
of,  192 ;  theories  of  the 
origin  and  end  of,  195 ; 
contractual,  196;  evolu 
tionary  theory  of  the  origin 
of,  206. 

Governments,  local,  author 
ized  by  Congress,  91—94. 

Great  Britain,  inconsistency 
of,  in  carrying  out  colonial 
policy,  i,  2 ;  commercial 
relations  of  the  colonies 
with,  7 ;  negotiations  of, 

19 


with  foreign  mercenaries, 
66,  67,  73 ;  Prohibitory  act 
of  (i775),  72;  reply  of  col 
onies  to  Prohibitory  act, 
73 ;  acts  of  aggression  of, 
93  J  John  Adams  on  sepa 
ration  from,  95  ;  revolution 
of  1688,  193 ;  colonial  in 
terpretation  of  the  consti 
tution  of,  199,  200;  official 
relations  of  the  colonies 
with,  208-211;  attitude  of, 
toward  slavery,  215,  216; 
on  the  constitutional  right 
of,  to  enact  legislation  for 
the  colonies,  257;  neglect 
of  colonial  possessions,  257. 

Green,  John  Richard,  Short 
history  of  the  English 
people,  171. 

Greene,  Evarts  B.,  The  pro 
vincial  governor,  222. 

Grenville,  George,  195,  213; 
colonial  policy  of,  2,  3 ; 
rigorous  enforcement  of 
trade  laws  by,  237 ;  acts  of 
aggression  instituted  by, 

243. 
Gwinnet,  Button,  96,  143. 

HALL,  Lyman,  96,  143. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  on  gov 
ernment,  195. 

Hancock,  John,  135,  139,  142, 
181,  249  ;  friction  between 
Maryland  delegates  and,  89  ; 
president  of  Congress,  123. 

Harrison,  Benjamin,  101,  106, 
126,  133,  143  ;  member  of 
Committee  of  secret  cor 
respondence,  75  ;  on  inde 
pendence,  76  ;  manuscript 
notes  by,  on  the  original 
manuscript  of  the  Virginia 
resolutions,  101. 


290 


INDEX 


Hart,  John,  143. 

Henry  VIII,  249. 

Henry,  Patrick,  225  ;  on  in 
dependence,  28,  29. 

Hessian  troops,  employment 
of,  67,  255. 

Heyward,    Thomas,    Jr.,    143. 

Hewes,  Joseph,  143,  145 ; 
North  Carolina's  interests 
guarded  by,  97. 

Hillsborough,  Lord,  217,  225; 
repressive  measures  of,  9  ; 
became  first  Secretary  of 
state  for  the  colonies,  210. 

Hobbes,  Thomas,  185,  187, 
197;  on  government,  186; 
Leviathan,  186. 

Hooker,  Richard,  197 ;  on 
government,  186,  187. 

riooper,  William,  104,  145; 
member  of  committee  to 
prepare  address  against  in 
dependence,  56 ;  opposes 
plan  of  confederation,  104. 

Hopkins,  Stephen,  142 ;  on 
rights  of  the  colonies,  14; 
on  government,  195. 

Hopkinson,  Francis,  143. 

Howe,  Sir  William,  procla 
mation,  concerning  Boston, 
47;  at  Sandy  Hook,  122. 

Humphreys,  Charles,  votes 
against  independence,  129, 
143; 

Huntington,  Samuel,  58,   142. 

INDEPENDENCE,  first  steps  to 
ward,  6 ;  not  advocated  by 
Congress  of  1774,  28;  ad 
vance  toward,  37 ;  not  pub 
licly  advocated  by  Con 
gress,  37 ;  popular  move 
ment  toward,  42,  43  ;  rapid 
development  of  sentiment 
of,  48,  49,  51  ;  motion 


against,  56,  57 ;  public  sen 
timent  for,  58 ;  preparation 
for,  6 1  ;  reluctance  of  col 
onists  to  declare  for,  62, 
63  and  open  ports,  71  ;  in 
structions  of  five  colonies 
against,  77,  78,  81  ;  attitude 
of  conservatives  toward, 
79 ;  fight  in  Congress  for, 
85 ;  increase  in  popularity 
of,  89  ;  status  of  the  senti 
ment  of,  the  first  of  June, 
1776,  99;  motion  in  Con 
gress  for,  100;  vote  on, 
postponed  one  day,  102; 
debates  on,  103-106;  vote 
on,  postponed  three  weeks, 
106 ;  New  York  on,  116; 
resolutions  for,  by  New 
York,  120;  consideration 
of  resolutions  for,  123  ;  de 
bates  on  resolutions  for, 
123;  vote  for,  125-129; 
denial  by  colonies  of  desire 
for,  1 66  ;  popular  mind  pre 
pared  for  reception  of,  199, 
200.  See  also  Declaration 
of  Independence. 

Independence  Hall,  Philadel 
phia,  134. 

Indians,   threat   to   arm,    256. 

Iredell,  James,  North  Caro 
lina  laws,  231. 

JAMES   II,   105,   209. 

Jay,  John,  112  ;  address  to  the 
people  of  Great  Britain  pre 
pared  by,  26 ;  member  of 
committee  to  confer  with 
New  Jersey,  46 ;  on  inde 
pendence,  76,  79. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  79,  143, 
147,  152,  165,  176,  230,  240, 
242 ;  on  independence,  28, 
29 ;  returns  to  Congress, 


INDEX 


291 


92 ;  notes  of  debates  on  in 
dependence  made  by,  102; 
chairman  of  committee  to 
prepare  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  107;  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  draft 
ed  by,  121,  122;  on  para 
graphs  omitted  from  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
130;  on  the  signing  of  the 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  140;  popularity 
of,  156;  reply  of,  to  John 
Adams'  criticism,  157-159; 
disclaims  authority  of  Par 
liament,  163,  164;  position 
of,  in  relation  to  the  Dec 
laration  of  Independence, 
173,  177  J  Summary  view  of 
the  rights  of  British  Amer 
ica,  173,  174,  243;  proposed 
constitution  for  Virginia 
prepared  by,  1 74  ;  on  gov 
ernment,  195  ;  influence  of  / 
Locke  upon,  197,  201-203  »N 
on  government  as  voiced  in 
the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  200,  201  ;  on 
equality,  201,  202  ;  on  dis 
allowance  by  the  King  of 
colonial  laws,  213,  214;  on 
the  King's  neglect  of  Vir 
ginia  laws,  221  ;  on  repre 
sentation,  223,  224 ;  Works, 
104,  121,  130,  140,  148,  159, 
165,  174,  202,  224,  228,  240, 
241,  243. 

Journal  of  Congress,  1774: 
19,  21,  23,  24,  34,  164,  236; 
1775:  34,  35,  39,  40,  42,  46, 
69,  70,  86,  165,  166;  1776: 
66,  67,  70,  74,  77,  82,  83,  84, 
86,  87,  92,  94,  96,  97,  107, 
112,  123,  145,  146,  235; 
July  4,  1776,  upon  the  Dec 


laration  of  Independence, 
135,  136;  manuscripts  of, 
138-140. 

Judiciary,  on  the  establish 
ment  of,  230-233 ;  on  the 
tenure  of  office  and  pay 
ment  of  salaries  of,  232- 
235. 

LAND  companies  refused  the 
right  to  found  colonies, 
227. 

Land  grants,  restrictions  of 
limits  for,  227. 

Lands,  acquisition  of,  228. 

Langdon-Elwyn    papers,    183. 

Lecky,  William  E.  H.,  His 
tory  of  England  in  the  i8th 
century,  171. 

Lee,    Francis    Lightfoot,    143. 

Lee,  Richard  Henry,  168; 
address  to  the  people  of 
the  colonies  prepared  by, 
27  ;  in  Congress,  84 ;  reso 
lutions  introduced  by,  100; 
debate  of,  on  adoption  of 
resolutions  for  indepen 
dence,  104—106;  on  signing 
of  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  145,  147,  148; 
charges  of,  against  Jeffer 
son,  158. 

Legislative  assemblies.  See 
Assemblies,  colonial. 

Lewis,  Francis,   142. 

Lexington,  effect  of  hostili 
ties  at,  30. 

Liberty,  the  sloop,  riots  upon 
seizure  of,  249. 

Liberty  Bell,  unwarranted 
prominence  of,  134. 

Lincoln,   Abraham,  202. 

Lincoln,  Revolutionary  move 
ment  in  Pennsylvania,  45, 
56,  86,  108. 


292 


INDEX 


Lippard,  George,  Legends  of 
the  revolution,  134. 

Livingston,  Philip,   142. 

Livingston,  Robert  R.,  121, 
142,  144;  opposes  adoption 
of  resolutions  for  indepen 
dence,  102,  103,  104;  mem 
ber  of  committee  to  prepare 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence,  107. 

Livingston,  William,  168; 
motion  of,  60. 

Locke,  John,  185,  198 ;  col 
onists'  reception  of  political 
ideas  of,  n  ;  doctrine  of, 
on  the  separation  of  pow 
ers,  1 68;  on  government, 
186-193  ;  Treatises  on  gov 
ernment,  187;  influence  of, 
upon  the  colonial  Fathers, 
197;  influence  of,  upon 
Jefferson,  201  ;  on  equality, 
202 ;  resemblance  between 
deductions  of,  and  of  mod 
ern  jurists,  205,  206. 

Lords  of  the  Committee  of 
Council  for  Plantation  af 
fairs,  211. 

Lotteries,  legislation  respect 
ing,  2. 

Lowell,  Abbott  Lawrence, 
Essays  on  government,  186, 
205. 

Lynch,  Thomas,  Jr.,  143. 

McCRADY,  Edward,  South 
Carolina  under  royal  gov 
ernment,  20,  233 ;  South 
Carolina  in  the  revolution, 
63,  100,  115,  127,  233. 

MacDonald,  William,  Select 
charters  illustrative  of  Am 
erican  history,  8,  208,  227, 
234-236,  238,  241,  243-245, 
247,  250,  252-255. 


McKean,  Thomas,  84,  112, 
129,  143. 

McLaughlin,  Andrew  Cun 
ningham,  1 86,  205. 

Martin,  Alexander,  220,  223 ; 
abdicates  government,  255. 

Maryland,  resolutions  of,  on 
non-importation  (1774),  19, 
20;  instructions  of,  against 
independence,  45,  77;  con 
test  for  independence  in, 
80 ;  controversy  between 
the  Council  of  safety  of, 
and  Congress,  87-89  ;  reac 
tionary  resolutions  of,  96  ; 
on  independence,  113,  114, 
123 ;  votes  for  resolutions 
for  independence,  125 ;  ef 
fort  of,  to  restrict  entrance 
of  convicts,  216. 

Maryland  Convention,  Pro 
ceedings  of,  88,  89,  113, 
114. 

Maryland  Council  of  safety, 
Journal  and  correspondence 
of,  65. 

Massachusetts,  advice  by 
Congress  respecting  gov 
ernment,  34 ;  radical  dele 
gates  of,  control  vote  of 
colony,  58,  59 ;  on  inde 
pendence,  100,  114,  115; 
constitution  of,  204,  dis 
putes  over  laws  of,  215 ; 
breaking  up  of  land  bank 
schemes  of,  217 ;  laws  of, 
disallowed  by  the  King, 
218;  removal  of  Assembly 
of,  225  ;  dissolution  of  As 
sembly  of,  225,  226  ;  on  the 
judiciary,  233,  235  ;  failure 
to  rescind  Circular  letter 
of,  249 ;  act  regulating  gov 
ernment  of,  251,  252;  sal 
ary  of  governor  of,  252. 


INDEX 


293 


Massachusetts    historical    so 
ciety,  Proceedings,  144,  147. 
Massachusetts    State    papers, 

2l8,    222,    235,    238. 

Merriam,  Charles  Edward, 
American  political  theories, 
1 86,  197,  205 ;  on  sover 
eignty,  196,  197. 

Middleton,  Arthur,   143. 

Military,  independent  of  civil 
power,  237,  239. 

Milton,  John,  186. 

Molasses  act  (1733),  243, 
245;  (1764),  243,  245. 

Montesquieu,  Baron,  on  sepa 
ration  of  powers,  198,  204. 

Montgomery,  General,  death 
of,  57;  services  in  memory 
of,  59- 

Moore,  Sir  Henry,  217. 

Morris,  Lewis,  142,  144. 

Morris,  Robert,  71,  78,  107; 
on  independence,  75,  76, 
79,  129  ;  letter  of,  to  Joseph 
Reed,  129  ;  on  the  signing 
of  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence  by,  140 ;  opposi 
tion  of,  to  Declaration  of 
Independence,  180. 

Morton,  John,   129,   143,   144. 

Mutiny  act,  extension  of  pro 
visions  of,  to  the  colonies, 
238. 

NARRAGANSETT  Bay,  burning 
of  the  Gaspee  in,  249. 

Naturalization,  generally  prac 
ticed  by  the  colonies,  228 ; 
passage  of  acts  of,  prohib 
ited,  229. 

Nature,  law  of,  as  related  to 
government,  188,  189. 

Nature,  state  of,  186;  denned 
by  Locke,  188,  189. 


Navigation  act  (1651),  208; 
acts,  212. 

Negroes,  threat  to  arm,  256. 

Nelson,  Thomas,  Jr.,  143. 

New  England,  favors  a  dec 
laration  of  independence 
by  Congress,  99  ;  favors  the 
adoption  of  the  resolutions 
for  independence,  104,  105, 
125. 

New  Hampshire,  not  repre 
sented  at  Stamp  act  con 
gress,  5 ;  advised  by  Con 
gress  to  form  a  government, 
34,  43,  80,  226  ;  appeal  of, 
to  Congress  for  advice  on 
government,  49,  226 ;  on 
independence,  114;  royal 
instructions  to,  against  op 
position  to  slave  trade,  215  ; 
on  representation,  223,  224. 

New  Jersey,  resolutions  of, 
on  non-importation  (1774), 
19,  20 ;  instructions  of, 
against  independence,  45, 
77 ;  proposes  sending  a  new 
petition  to  the  King,  46; 
contest  for  independence  in, 
80 ;  revolutionary  changes 
in,  no,  in;  relations  of 
Gov.  Franklin  and  the 
Provincial  Congress  of, 
in;  declares  for  a  new 
government  and  for  inde 
pendence,  112;  votes  for 
resolutions  for  indepen 
dence,  125 ;  laws  of,  de 
signed  to  prohibit  slave 
trade,  215;  laws  of,  re 
specting  bills  of  credit, 
218;  on  representation,  223. 

New  Jersey  Archives,  46, 
218. 

New   Jersey    Congress,   letter 


294 


INDEX 


of,  to  the  Continental  Con 
gress,  in. 

New  York,  instructions  of, 
against  independence,  45, 
77 ;  reluctance  of,  to  de 
clare  for  independence,  63  ; 
contest  for  independence 
in,  80 ;  pressure  of  Con 
gress  upon  conservative 
element  of,  94 ;  political 
and  religious  division  in, 
116;  position  in  Congress 
of,  of  minor  importance, 
116;  resolutions  of  Provin 
cial  Congress  of,  on  form 
ing  new  governments,  117; 
vacillation  and  inconsist 
ency  of  Provincial  Con 
gress  of,  118-120;  dele 
gates  of,  given  no  instruc 
tions  on  independence,  118- 
119,  126,  143,  144;  Provin 
cial  Congress  of,  removed 
to  White  Plains,  119; 
adopts  resolutions  to  sup 
port  the  Declaration  of  In 
dependence,  120;  Conven 
tion  of,  reports  Howe  at 
Sandy  Hook,  122;  laws  of, 
respecting  bills  of  credit, 
217,  218;  royal  instructions 
to  governors  of,  respecting 
legislation,  219 ;  on  repre 
sentation,  223 ;  on  the  ju 
diciary  of,  233  ;  suspension 
of  Assembly  of,  253,  254. 

New  York  Legislative  coun 
cil,  Journal  of,  223. 

Niles,  Hezekiah,  Principles 
and  acts  of  the  revolution, 
8. 

Non-exportation  agreements, 
20,  26,  40,  41,  247. 

Non-importation,  Articles  of 
Association  upon,  22. 


Non-importation  agreements, 
9,  19,  20,  26,  247. 

Norfolk,  burning  of,  52,  255. 

North,  Lord,  64,  65  ;  on  plan 
of  conciliation  of,  39 ;  an 
swer  of  colonies  to  motion 
of,  165. 

North  Carolina,  not  repre 
sented  at  Stamp  act  con 
gress,  5 ;  resolutions  on 
non-importation  (1774),  20 ; 
delegates  absent  from  Con 
gress  in  1776,  50;  contest 
for  independence  in,  80 ; 
instructions  of,  in  favor  of 
independence,  96,  97,  99 ; 
votes  for  resolutions  of  in 
dependence,  125  ;  constitu 
tion  of,  204  ;  on  the  estab 
lishment  of  superior  courts 
of  justice  in,  230,  233,  253  ; 
on  attachment  of  property 
in,  231  ;  Assembly  of,  dis 
solved,  232 ;  laws  of,  ex 
empting  immigrants  from 
taxation,  disallowed  by  the 
King,  229. 

North  Carolina  colonial  rec 
ords,  220,  227,  229,  231, 
233- 

OTIS,  James,  199 ;  Rights  of 
the  British  colonies  assert 
ed  and  proved,  12,  157,  189  ; 
on  the  rights  of  the  col 
onies,  13,  14;  on  govern 
ment,  195. 

PACA,  William,  143. 

Paine,  Robert  Treat,  142. 

Paine,  Thomas,  appearance 
of  Common  Sense  by,  52 ; 
influence  of  Common  Sense, 
53 ;  origin  of  Common 


INDEX 


295 


Sense,  53-55 ;  dessemina- 
tion  of  Common  Sense,  61. 

Paper  money,  82.  See  also 
Bills  of  credit. 

Parliament,  acts  of,  affecting 
commerce  and  industries  of 
the  colonies,  i,  2;  projects 
itself  into  American  affairs, 
6  ;  beginning  of  controversy 
between  colonies  and,  6 ; 
remonstrance  against  au 
thority  of,  7,  14;  opposition 
of  colonies  to  control  by, 
162-167;  establishment  of 
supremacy  of,  in  England, 
187;  attempt  of,  to  revive 
authority  in  colonies  (1763), 
194,  195  ;  address  King  in 
1740  upon  colonial  legisla 
tion,  219  ;  act  of,  "  for  the 
impartial  administration  of 
justice"  (i774),  241,  242; 
acts  of,  on  colonial  trade 
(1688-1765),  243,  244;  act 
of,  authorizing  captives  to 
bear  arms  against  their 
country  (1755),  255. 

Penn,  John,  143. 

Pennsylvania,  resolutions  of, 
on  non-importation  (1774), 
19,  20  ;  attitude  toward  in 
dependence  of  conserva 
tives  of,  43  ;  efforts  of 
the  conservative  party  to 
keep  control  of  government 
of,  44,  45  ;  instructions 
of,  against  independence, 
45,  77 ;  attempt  to  break 
up  conservative  party  in, 
54 ;  radicals  of,  gain  in 
power,  56 ;  reluctance  of, 
to  declare  for  indepen 
dence,  63 ;  Conference  of 
Committees  of,  109;  new 
instructions  of,  to  dele 


gates,  109;  dissolution  of 
Assembly  of,  109 ;  votes 
against  resolutions  for  in 
dependence,  126;  political 
situation  of,  128 ;  votes  for 
independence,  129  ;  attempts 
to  overthrow  proprietary 
government  in,  162;  con 
stitution  of,  204 ;  effort  of, 
to  restrict  entrance  of  con 
victs,  216 ;  laws,  respecting 
bills  of  credit,  218;  con 
servative  policy  of,  78,  79, 
90 ;  contest  for  indepen 
dence  in,  80 ;  antagonism 
of  Assembly  of,  to  Con 
gress,  83,  85,  86 ;  attempt 
to  overthrow  the  Assembly 
of,  94 ;  protestations  of  in 
habitants  of  Philadelphia 
against  the  Assembly  of, 
107,  1 08;  change  of  form 
of  government  of,  108,  109; 
on  independence,  108-110, 
128,  129;  inhabitants  of, 
protest  against  competency 
of  the  Pennsylvania  As 
sembly,  107,  1 08. 

Pitt,  William,  on  the  Declara 
tory  act,  15. 

Political  organizations,  inter 
colonial,  4. 

Poore,  Benjamin  Perley, 
Charters  and  constitutions, 
204. 

Ports,  opening  of,  62,  69,  70, 
7i  ,73,  78. 

Pownall,  Thomas,  on  royal 
instructions  issued  to  gov 
ernors,  222 ;  Administra 
tion  of  the  colonies,  222. 

Privateering,  authorization  of, 
73,  84. 

"  Prohibitory  Act,"  78,  244. 

Property,    conception    of,    by 


ric 

Loeke,  188,  i%; 


Act,"  238. 
Quebec  act  (1774),  250,  251. 

Qoebec,  fall  of  (17*),  57- 

-  .  ____    -•  •    -.-     —  .  __  ._  . 

7T 


Cfcaries    Lee. 


George,  M3;  L*f*  •** 
oj,     no; 


by,  144.  MS. 

Edward,    60,    106, 

:-:     :--    :.;     : -_:      ::::fti 

independence,      102,      103. 
Carolina  potirks,  127. 


:v     :-: 

R«d,  Joseph,  €3,  180;  Uje 
«^  nnrip^rndtmtt  of,  45, 
64,  65,  181  ;  on  Ac  pro- 
posed  coonnssioners  of  tke 
King,  is;  Letterx  f»  Jku 
;  :'f. 

*•  Restnioing   Ads"    (i/75), 

-  "-     "      "- 

--:" 
Bf  nii^iiM.  nrmfafM  of  Ac 


~:f' 


Sine  In*,  Ins  _ 

tinBtmtA.   by   tbe    crown, 
«S;  irnliaUti  iy  Articfa 
of  ^TMfi^iia,  74,  216. 
Skvoy,  draft  of  Declaration 
of    Independence    on,    130, 


INDEX 


297 


Smith.  Richard.  Diary,  40, 
56,  57,  60,  72,  104. 

Smith,  Dr.  William,  oration 
of,  59- 

Smuggling,  437. 

South  Carolina,  votes  against 
non-importation  agreement 
(1774),  26;  advised  by 
Congress  to  form  a  gov 
ernment,  34,  80,  226;  dele 
gates  absent  from  Congress 
in  1776,  50;  reluctance  of, 
to  declare  for  independence, 
63 ;  political  revolutions  in, 
79,  80;  contest  for  inde 
pendence  in,  80 ;  on  inde 
pendence,  99,  115,  116; 
first  vote  of,  against  resolu 
tions  for  independence, 
127;  final  vote  of,  for  in 
dependence,  127 ;  on  sla 
very,  130;  constitution  of, 
204 ;  laws  of,  designed  to 
prohibit  slave  trade,  215; 
removal  of  Assembly  of, 
225  ;  dissolution  of  Assem 
bly  of,  225  ;  appeal  to  Con 
gress  of,  for  advice  on  gov 
ernment,  226 ;  on  the  es 
tablishment  of  courts  of 
justice  in,  233. 

Southern  colonies,  laws  of, 
215- 

Sovereignty,  the  beginning  of, 
48 ;  doctrine  of  popular, 
196,  197. 

Sparks.  Jared,  Washington, 
29,  181. 

Stamp  act,  246 ;  repeal  of,  3, 
8,  10  ;  resistance  by  Con 
gress  to,  5  ;  economic  rea 
sons  for  non-enforcement 
of,  7,  8  ;  five  years  succeed 
ing  passage  of,  10;  on  riots 
occasioned  by,  218. 


Stamp     act     congress.       See 

Congress  of,  1765. 
Staples,  Rlwde  Island  in  the 

Continental  Congress,  93. 
Stephen,    Sir    Leslie,    on   po 
litical      philosophy,       184; 

English  thought  in  the  iSth 

century,   184,   186,    187. 
Stephen,      Sir      James      Fitz 

James,  Hora  Sabbatica,  16, 

186. 
Stevens,    Benjamin    Franklin, 

Facsimiles,  63. 
Stille,  Charles,  Dickinson,  45, 

104,   125. 

Stockton.   Richard,  142. 
Stone,    Thomas,    143 ;    letter 

of,  65. 
Stuart,     the     Indian     agent, 

makes    overtures    to    Gen. 

Gage,  257. 
Suffolk     county     resolutions, 

endorsement     by     Congress 

of,  21. 
Sugar  act  (1764),  6,  235,  244, 

245- 
Sullivan.    William,    on    social 

compact,   185. 
Sydney,   Algernon,    186,    197. 

TAYLOR,  George,  on  signing 
of  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  144,  149. 

Taxation,  acts  of  Parliament 
for  raising  revenue  by  di 
rect,  6 ;  principle  of,  at 
issue,  12 ;  without  consent, 
163,  244-248. 

Taxation,  without  represen 
tation,  7,  12,  13,  25,  163, 
196. 

Tea,  non-importation  of,  22 ; 
opposition  to  landing  of, 
248. 

r  F  ~  V!  E 


298 


INDEX 


Tea  act  of  1770,  9,  10,  247, 
248,  254;  of  1773,  248,  254. 

Thomson,  Charles,  138,  142; 
the  original  manuscript  of 
the  Virginia  resolutions 
endorsed  by,  101  ;  tran 
script  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  by,  139. 

Thornton,  Matthew,  signing 
of  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  146,  149,  150. 

Trade  compromise  of  Nov.  i, 
1775,  69. 

Trade  laws,  economic  reasons 
for  non-enforcement  of,  7 ; 
enforcement  of,  with  view 
to  end  smuggling,  237 ;  en 
forcement  of,  243,  244. 

Treaties,  committee  to  pre 
pare  a  plan  of,  107. 

Trial  by  jury,  7,  25,  248,  249, 
250. 

Troops,  quartering  of,  with 
out  consent  of  colonists,  4, 
238. 

Tryon,  William,  230 ;  con 
spiracy  against  Washington 
instituted  by,  119,  122;  ab 
dicates  government,  255. 

Tories,  resolutions  to  sup 
press,  57  ;  suppression  of, 
82,  83  ;  influence  of,  in  New 
York  politics,  116. 

Townshend  acts  (1767),  pas 
sage  of,  5 ;  partial  repeal 
of,  9,  10;  on  the  Town 
shend  revenue  act,  known 
as  "Glass,  lead  and  paint 
act,"  234,  247,  248  ;  on  en 
forcement  of  taxation  laws 
in  the,  236.  See  also  Tea 
act. 

Tyler,  Moses  Coit,  Literary 
history  of  American  revo 
lution,  154,  179,  1 80;  on 


the    Declaration    of    Inde 
pendence,  177,  178-180. 
Tyranny,  191,  192. 

UNION,  effectiveness  of,  5,  6  ; 
represented  by  Congress, 
32 ;  sentiment  regarding, 
strengthened  by  Congress, 
35,  36,  39  J  strengthened  by 
Lord  North's  plan  of  con 
ciliation,  40 ;  fundamental 
acts  of,  133,  134. 

United  colonies.  See  colonies. 

United  States,  first  use  of  the 
phrase,  136;  relation  of  po 
litical  science  to  the  po 
litical  life  of,  161  ;  consti 
tutional  and  legal  develop 
ment  of,  205,  206. 

Usurpation,   191. 

VIRGINIA,  not  represented  at 
Stamp  act  congress,  5 ; 
resolutions  of,  on  non-im 
portation  (1774),  19,  20; 
advised  by  Congress  to 
form  a  government,  34,  80, 
226 ;  majority  of  delegates 
favor  independence,  50  ;  re 
luctance  of,  to  declare  for 
independence,  63  ;  instruc 
tions  of,  to  propose  inde 
pendence,  96,  97,  99 ;  reso 
lutions  for  independence 
by,  100,  101 ;  manuscript  of 
the  resolutions,  101  ;  fac 
simile  of  the  resolutions, 
1 01  ;  on  the  accepting  of 
the  resolutions,  104,  105 ; 
vote  for  resolutions  of  In 
dependence,  125  ;  constitu 
tion  of,  204 ;  laws  of,  de 
signed  to  prohibit  slave 
trade,  215  ;  effort  of,  to  re 
strict  entrance  of  con- 


INDEX 


299 


victs,  215,  216;  royal  in 
structions  to  government 
of,  upon  suppression  of  lot 
teries,  220 ;  British  neglect 
of  laws  of  (1770),  220, 
221  ;  on  representation, 
223 ;  dissolution  of  As 
sembly  of,  225 ;  appeal  to 
Congress  for  advice  on 
government  of,  226. 

WALTON,  George,  143. 

War  of  independence,  early 
events  of,  255,  256. 

War  office,  establishment  of 
a,  considered  by  Congress, 
57;  institution  of  a,  107. 

Ward,  Henry,  in  Congress, 
84;  death  of,  85. 

Washington,  George,  65,  73  ; 
impatience  of,  at  delay  in 
declaring  independence,  64 ; 
called  to  councils  of  Con 
gress,  96 ;  reports  to  Con 
spiracy  in  New  York,  122; 
on  the  Declaration  of  inde 
pendence,  181-182. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  al 
legiance  of  the  colonies  to 
the  king,  169,  170. 

Wendell,  Barrett,  Literary 
history  of  America,  160. 

Wentworth,   John,    224. 

West  Indies,  trade  of,  with 
the  colonies,  244. 

Whigs,  under  Rockingham 
administration,  4 ;  return 
to  power  of  Rockingham, 
9- 

Whiggism,  expounded  by 
Locke,  187. 


Whipple,  William,  142;  on 
the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  182. 

William  III,  establishes  a 
permanent  Board  for  trade 
and  foreign  plantations, 
209. 

Williams,  William,  on  the 
signing  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  by,  144, 
147,  149. 

Willing,  William,  143  ;  votes 
against  independence,  129. 

Wilson,  James,  143,  144,  168; 
motion  by,  56 ;  defeat  of 
motion,  57,  58 ;  protests 
against  local  governments, 
94 ;  opposes  adoption  of 
resolutions  of  indepen 
dence,  102,  103,  104;  on 
independence,  128 ;  votes 
for  independence,  129;  on 
government,  195. 

Winsor,  Justin,  Narrative 
and  critical  history,  29, 
238,  250,  257. 

Witherspoon,  John,   143. 

Wolcott,  Oliver,  60;  in  Con 
gress,  58 ;  on  signing  of 
Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  146,  147. 

Wyoming,  border  warfare  of, 
83,  86. 

Wythe,  George,  60,  85,  176; 
member  of  committee  to 
confer  with  New  Jersey, 
46;  in  Congress,  84;  de 
bate  of,  on  adoption  of  the 
resolutions  for  indepen 
dence,  104-106;  on  signing 
of  Declaration  of  Indepen 
dence  by,  145,  147,  148. 


JST 

*-    * 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed, 
leoewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


••••' 

• 

LOAN 

1-tB     7  1967 

D  ,0  tfTO  7& 

jtfR3° 

$4  &-&M4m££* 

*v  ^  vKrVBri/ 

/-  t  :;  -,      -  i     '  -    -:  '  '  -'  /"i          -'  •         j    L  i 

.-if  /0«IAM 

fc 


- 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

'  ••"•  - 


